Sheer Will vs Thin Air: Analysis of Jon Krakauer and Yasuko Namba's locations after 3:30PM
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- Compares Michael Groom's account in Sheer Will with Jon Krakauer's account in Into Thin Air of the time period between 3:30PM and 7:30PM on May 10, 1996.
Significant differences exist between Groom and Krakauer's account, and Krakauer has changed his story over the years. It appears Groom's version is accurate with Krakauer having invented his version to push Yasuko further up the mountain so that it is not obvious that he abandoned her on the descent.
Fair Use:
• Jon Krakauer · Into Th...
web.archive.or...
/ a-postscript-to-into-t...
• The 1996 Disaster · ST...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @michaeltracy2356
Take the poll on Krakauer's book: www.youtube.com/@michaeltracy2356/community
That last line is so heartbreaking. Yasuko was so close to the tents.
It was clearly Boukreev’s lack of oxygen climbing that left him unable to help Yasuko
As a lifelong mountaineer (now in my early 70's) I have always been fascinated by anything to do with high altitude mountaineering in general and Mt Everest in particular.
I vividly remember reading Krakauer's article in Outside and the subsequent book as soon as it was published. It was not until several years later when Anatoly Boukreev's book became available that I first realized that many things were seriously wrong with Krakauer's version of the 1996 events. In my view, Boukreev was not only the finest high altitude alpinist who ever lived, he was also a genuine hero who selflessly risked his own life multiple times that night, and did not deserve the scathing criticism leveled at him by Krakauer.
Please continue with the yeoman's work you have performed with this series of videos in which you have been setting the record straight about the Mt Everest events of 1996.
The truth matters just as much now, some 28 yeats later, as it did back then. Keep up the good work.
This man was a reporter or something, journalist or tv host.. He came along for a trip of a lifetime, and to get some work done.. He was faced with choices, most likely the same choices faced by Rob, Fisher, Harris,.. Save someone else while trying to save yourself, or, do what you can to get yourself down.. Now we can hate on Jon cause he decided to save himself, while the rest of them get respect cause they all perished? but somehow its just not the same, because they are on Everest, and in that place, its agreed before hand, you do this at your own risk.. to have agreed as a group its at your own risk, to then come back later to debate if it was right or wrong, is wrong to me, the agreement was done so the climb started, if they did not agree to that, there would be NO climbing correct?..
Krakauer was a climber before he ever tried his hand at Journalism. He was a very experienced snow and ice climber. The evidence is that Krakauer abandoned the 90 pound Yasuko.
@@jfern6673It's not even that he left her, it's that he lied about it. Over and over and over.
@rabarbarum It also seems, according this video, that he left her because she was nuisance, not a liability.
@@jfern6673you’re an ignorant dullard. UA-cam - full of them confidently spewing their ignorance. Krakauer was a very experienced climber - more so than many there. For goodness sakes you’d know that if you’d even read HIS book.
So Krakauer and Yasuko are descending. Weather gets bad and Yasuko is going slower than Krakauer would like. He panics, worried about getting caught in storm and takes off, leaving Yasuko by herself. After the fact, he distances himself from Yasuko to hide the fact that he left her on the mountain. Does that sum it up pretty well?
Yep
@@michaeltracy2356 Were they still together when Jon ran into Beck then?
From Grooms account, he sent Krakauer and Yasuko down before he went up to help Rob. That would be when Krakauer ran into Beck, as he and Yasuko descended. That is another problem with Krakauer's story. He claims he was in front of Groom and Yasuko, but then stopped, had a conversation with Beck and found his old oxygen bottle, and yet Groom was till too far behind him? Doesn't really make sense either, but the video was getting too long as it was and Krakauer hearing the radio call and Krakauer referencing Groom's account are enough to understand what he did. Krakauer's interactions with Weathers also have several different versions and Beck's account is not reliable -- he has Bidleman show up. I just took Beck's account as a rather confused estimate of what happened and it is not useful to compare to others. Groom was pretty lucid, was working the radio, and has a consistent account that makes sense. Groom then came back down, went over to Adams and then saw Krakauer and Yasuko down below -- so by that time, Krakauer's conversation with Beck was over. Immediately after that, Groom encounters Beck.
What a nasty person he seems and a lier.
Krakauer makes it pretty clear early in the book the contempt he has for anyone that he thinks doesn't measure up.
I remember reading Into Thin Air when it first came out and still being horrified that he just gave up and collapsed.
Lots of respect for Bukorov
God. You can see why Namba's husband couldn't accept the version of events he was told.
Cultural expectations probably different, too. I'd be interested in having someone speculate about that . . .
@@davidschneide5422Well, he did know, they were behind him, somewhere! He knew, who was on his team! Obviously, the storm, was the major problem! No doubt! But, we weren't there, so its hard to say!
My heart breaks for her husband.
I was a young climber when „into thin air“ came out. It was a good read but own experience cast a shadow of doubt about Krakauers accounts. If you are a hero person trailblazing, fixing ropes assisting others you don't just hide in a tent and wait it out while around you people fight for their lives help others or die. Krakauer used all his oxygen he was panic sucking bottle after bottle Yasuko Namba had a full bottle (Groom) and was fine even outpacing him (Timeline) . I always wondered if he got his second „wind“ by abandoning Yasuko and taking her Oxygen bottle to save his own live thus his behavior of making up false statements not even remembering her in his book. No he lied and hid in his tent until the storm was over hightailed down the mountain to spread his narrative of the events.
There is a very strong and tight Japanese mountaineering community. Yasuko's story actually goes back to another, more famous Japanese mountaineer who disappeared on Everest in about the same area where she perished, in the winter of '82. She created the "Everest Club" in his memory, and that was where she and her husband met. Unfortunately, as the Japanese social landscape is very private, she was an easy target for Krakauer's misogyny.
In 1997, her husband had her body brought down the mountain by a team of Sherpas. In a ceremony attended by her husband, she was cremated at the base of the mountain.
I don’t fault Krakauer for his actions on the mountain. Everyone is at the very edge of life and death up there so taking a decision to go on ahead and taking responsibility for himself and removing himself from needing to be saved is correct.
Building narratives at the expense of others is what he deserves criticism for. Narratives that turn out to contradict and/or not be supported by objective evidence.
Agree. The story itself was compelling. He either is a jerk, or gave in to having the book tweaked.
Particularly when at that point as far as Jon knows Groom, Hall and Harris will all be coming down after him to collect stragglers as was their jobs! Unknown to him, Rob and Andy are doomed due to decisions Rob made regarding Doug Hansen and a major storm is coming. Noting here it has been established post these events that Rob and Scott had knowledge prior that a bad storm that day was a high possibility.
@@Tenebarum and what a character development there would be if he had said the truth - mysogonistic ashole thinkin he is better than others because he has the power of pen and paper redefines himself and becomes mysogynistic ashole coward who actually have a power because he survived and pen and paper is very powerful weapon and you can portrait yourself as a hero trying to safe some lives helping those who passed because they cannot debunk things you are saying... That might be a draft character to my first book :D "Every similarities to living people is accidental"
If you haven't aged out and there is ever another draft, well, hopefully you fail out but if not, please flee the country. Go and learn what this means, No one gets left behind.
I remember reading Krakauer's account when it was first published and thinking it a fine example of journalism. Forgive me for the sins of my youth.
I enjoyed the book, too. He tells a good story.
Am also guilty of buying the book snd hence adding to his wealth. Never again.
@@Bamboule05 Not me. I borrowed it from the library!
Me neither, i read a "found" copy. It was hard going, given his self aggrandizing and condescending style. I don't think i finished it.
Naturally, it’s all Sandy Pittman’s fault.
Yes. I suppose Sandy must have been screwing around with a Quija Board at base camp.😂😂
I heard Sandy made the blizzard with her espresso machine. Plugged it right into the Hillary step and tried to froth the snow. Can you believe it?
@@FabricofTimelol!
Yeah, what a convenient target Sandy Pittman makes, it seems everyone needs to take a jab at her.
@@Tina06019 I think people here are joking. Most of us have discovered she was a competent climber who was scapegoated.
Thank You Michael. I always appreciate your rational & unbiased thoughts especially on this tragic event!
Since that time I've been trying to figure out how my "brother from another mother" Scott Fischer didn't come home. My last words when dropping him off at SEA-TAC airport "make it happen, have fun and see you when you get back" .
"Boukreev's book *The Climb* expressed profound regret at [Namba's] lonely death, saying that she was just a little 90-pound woman, and that someone should have dragged her back to camp so she could at least die among her companions. On a later expedition to Everest with the Indonesian National Team, Boukreev found Namba's body on April 28, 1997."
He also placed stones over her remains to protect them from scavenging birds and the elements, and collected some of her belongings that had been scattered in the wind. He later met her husband in a tea house to return what he had collected, to explain what he knew, and to apologize for not having rescued her. Infinitely more compassion than Krakauer, if not at least commitment to the spirit of mountaineering.
I doubt there are any scavengers at this altitude, but I get what you mean.
@@Bamboule05 I've always thought the same. But "alpine chough" get blamed for the tissue-less conditions of exposed faces, and they've been filmed eating garbage in Camp IV. Perhaps just the effects of wind, and blowing snow and decomposed granite?
@@lightnesstraveling RE AB's apology, she wasn't even part of his tour. That he felt the need to apologize speaks volumes. Re Jon versus AB. Jon's gripe is that instead of going down alone and resting AB should have stayed and helped. Which is Jon's subconscious admission that he should have stayed and helped Yasuko. Somewhere in one of his vids MT reported that Jon did write that he felt bad about some things, plural. Taking as given that one was his report that he misidentified Andy Harris. Pretty sure that the second one is Yasuko.
This is a remarkable piece of detective work Michael, perhaps your best yet. And I have devoured all of your previous videos.
Thank You for putting this all on record. Anatoly Boukreev is the greatest Hero.
He is. That is clear.
Great guy that Anatoly and there was a few others also.
‘an unorthodox passing move….” Pure Australian humour there
Or british understatement
@@Bamboule05 sure, if only Groom was British & not Australian.
@@2468bidwwe are brothers after all.
Great analysis, impressive and amazing amount of work you must go to to put your videos together. I hope Krakauer sees these.
Wow. Accepting this version makes the rivalry/hatred between Krakauer and Boukreev so easy to understand: no wonder Krakauer, who abandoned his teammate, hated Boukreev, who seemed to do the same at first but then went back out, risked his life, and saved a bunch of people.
...maybe Krakauer felt a bit guilty and he subconsciously blamed Boukreev for not saving Yasuko? It's pure speculation but it sort of makes sense. Technically speaking it wasn't even Boukreev's job to look after Adventure Consultants' clients, though obviously in a survival situation that's not the main concern.
@@baze3SC it wasn't Jon's job to look after Yasuko either. He would have assumed that Rob, Groom and Andy Harris were all on their tails and would gather the stragglers in the group as they came down. As Rob told Beck he would do and as was their job as guides! Whilst I understand Michael's angle in the video I think it is wrong to extend that to indirectly blame Jon for Yasuko's death. She was a fellow climber who had slowed down and Jon needed to push on. All the clients were under the responsibility of Rob and his guides. Rob meanwhile was making poor decisions higher up regarding Doug Hansen. Decisions which directly contributed to the deaths of himself, Doug and Andy noting that if not for the storm I reckon no-one dies at all.
@@davidgeisler9885 These are valid points and I even stated in another comment that I don't blame Krakauer for wanting to save his life. However, it's interesting to note that Rob Hall is portrayed as a tragic hero in his book whereas Boukreev is described as a neglectful guide. Although deeper analysis shows that Rob's decisions also contributed to the tragedy, perhaps even more so than Anatoli's.
@@baze3SC Anatoly’s actions in racing back down solo and waiting to be called on to help rather than actually helping with the descent do seem strange to me too. I know that’s a whole other debate. Maybe not for here!
@davisgeisler Boukreev had worked all day, securing ropes at the hillary step and preparing the trail through deep snow to the summit. He had to rest, and rightfully so. He was a very experienced high altitude mountaineer, I had the impression he was much better at preparing the climb than his boss, he thought ahaid.
I read Krakauer's original Outside article (on the internet) and have watched a lot of the videos since the UA-cam algorithm decided to hook me on this. He was there to write an article on the pitfalls of commercial Everest climbs vs the advantages of experienced, trained climbers who can act much more as a team than can paying customers. He certainly made that point pretty clearly, which was his job.
Certainly, that was his job, but it is less clear whether that was reality. Doug Hansen was, by Krakauer's own account the type if "experienced" climber who was "supposed" to be there. And yet, he is the one that caused all the deaths. Krakauer went there with an agenda, and he wrote about it even though the real story was sort of the opposite of what he was saying. But people like the "inexperienced climber" myth. So, give the people what they want.
@@michaeltracy2356 Mike, I think that you know better. As Lou K relates in his book and as JK relates quoting Lou, Lou is in line behind Doug. Lou sees Doug step out of line, Lou catches up to him, Lou speaks with Doug, who relates that he isn't feeling well and is going back to camp. Rob was tail-end Charlie, so he caught up to them, spoke with Doug, Lou heard no specifics and so nothing in that regard, then after speaking with Rob, Doug gets back in line and resumes his summit.
In other words, if Rob had simply said, Okay, Doug, you know you better than me, so head back to camp and I'll see you and we can talk when I get back... Since if he had, then Doug goes back to camp and so he doesn't die, Rob doesn't die, Andy Harris doesn't die, and if Rob and Andy are on hand, Yasuko probably doesn't die either.
Time that we all cut Doug some slack. Since once he resumes his attempt, well, how does he stop again?
What happens if no one summits that season, like the season prior? Does JK write that failure and then note that Rob didn't even offer a refund (okay, maybe they don't get refunded for meals)? And how about Sandy and MM? What happens if MM gets all of theirs to the summit while for AC all but Doug? Does Rob get back to camp and tell Doug, you told me you'd keep trying, except you quit again and now Scott got all his people while you're my failure. So how does Doug stop again?
In that precise sense JK represented a not insignificant danger. All this talk of 2 PM when his interview and article have 1 PM, Lou and the other soul who turned back also have 1 PM. Year prior no summits owing to turnaround time, except now that time was ignored. As you note, JK fudged the 1 PM to 2 PM, since if he didn't he couldn't use the experienced versus not narrative since he is experienced yet he too ignored the turnaround time. Oh, and was not Doug, experienced or not, but the expert Rob, who caused the deaths of all but Scott and there goes the narrative for Outside and JK.
For how badly Jebus wept, if you're hoping for that narrative, Outside and JK were, then JK isn't there because he skews the process. In other words, in addition to Rob we can also blame JK, since I have zero doubt that Rob ignored the turnaround time because JK was there. No problem with adhering to turnaround time the season prior, when JK wasn't there. Of course, JK ain't going anywhere near that and so of course it had to be muddled thinking owing to death zone and never mind explaining why no such problem the season prior. Christ, ended up going to law school and being a lawyer but started UCLA as a bio major and anyone who understands why we have double blind knows why JK is never allowed as part of the tour.
Krakuer spends the first 2/3rds of his book saying how he’s the best climber out there, then the last 1/3 about how he somehow became the most debilitated.
None of his book stands serious analysis like this. Good work!
They all get debilitated post climb.
More! More! More! I am not a climber and yet am forever captivated by documentaries and acted-out recreations of actual expeditions. It must have been the moment the motion picture Everest was released, that a non-climbing climbing fan like myself first caught wind of what controversial and contradicting stories had been told of what happened on the 1996 climb; particularly the climbing community bitter that the film mostly relied on Krakauer’s version. NEVER have I seen such detail by detail, side by side; moment by moment, comparison as you have so clearly done in these series of videos. I am subbed and notifications filled in and just waiting for your next one! Thank you for all this info and making it so easy to follow along. 🙏🏼💜
Wow...just wow. Jon Krakauer is a fucking weasel.
Seriously, man. Thank you for these videos. I've been looking for a solid analysis of this topic for years, ever since I got hooked on mountaineering stories. Read and reread Into Thin Air, The Climb, and After the Wind over and over, until I learned it by heart. I even went to obscure climbing forums from the 90s (thus discovering Cesare Maestri's saga of Cerro Torre). And things still didn't make sense.
Parts of Into Thin Air always felt theatrical or fake. Krakauer's literary persona is ever at the forefront, and other people are turned into familiar archetypes. Sandy Pittman is easy to stereotype as the dilettante, almost like the shrieking dolled-up woman from Indiana Jones: The Temple of Doom (thanks for addressing this misogynistic bullshit!). Boukreev was made into the Russian brute from Rocky IV. And Krakauer's own account of getting stoned in Katmandu after the tragedy is very similar to the opening scene of Apocalypse Now.
It's hard not to notice how he distances himself from his fellow climbers, how he tries to assume the role of a guide, as if to prove that he's better than all this commercial mess of paid Everest expeditions. Even though his own presence as Rob's walking, talking publicity machine was the most commercial part of it all.
And yet questions remain, big and small.
How come that the biggest tragedy of Everest at that time also involved an embedded journalist ready to record it? How did his presence impact Hall and Fischer's behavior? Or anybody else's for that matter? Kasichke writes that "the sense of betrayal by Rob was very real".
Why does K. completely gloss over his own collapse on the Southeast Ridge? It wasn't until I read Kasichke's book when I realized how serious it was, and that Groom probably saved his life there.
Why was it gravely irresponsible for Boukreev and Lopsang to not use oxygen, but when Mike Groom eschews his to help Jon Krakauer, sudenly that is no longer to be "overly concerned" about?
Why tf was Yasuko left alone?
Why does K. treat the fact that Harris apparently make him lose his oxygen like no big deal?
Yeah...
His attitude towards Boukreev is also egregious. Look, I'm Polish, and we don't exactly love Russians around here recently, but I can totally relate to the cultural alienation B. must have felt around Americans. And it has nothing to do with "coddling the weak". In Central and Eastern Europe we show respect by being serious, acting distant, avoiding small talk, underpromising, and understated praise - almost like the Japanese. That was even stronger in Soviet times. The American culture of Pan Am smiles, thank-you notes, chit-chat and referring to everything as "fascinating", "amazing" and "blessed" must have been completely unintelligible to an introverted, scientifically-minded, direct Russian guy. It's also evident that Krakauer found the language barrier frustrating (same with Lopsang), and that he didn't cut non-Westerners any slack. To the contrary, he weaponized this as much as he could.
I could go on but I'll stop here. Good stuff, man. Glad I discovered this channel, and looking forward to watching the M/I story now.
These videos are excellent research, and as far as I can tell, accurately illuminate key details of the events that actually occurred. But I am struck again, as I was back in 1996/97, at the utterly chaotic and disorganized guiding situation. Clients going up, down, every which way on their own or in combination with other people. Guides either sticking (responsibly) with one client or another, never mind about the other clients in their party; others just climbing up or down, staying unnecessary HOURS on the summit when there is a storm coming (whether they knew it or not - there is ALWAYS a storm coming in the high mountains). Telling people to do one thing or another (e.g., telling Beck Weathers to just stay at a particular spot, period), without any contingency plan or schedule. It's so incredibly random. To me, utterly incredible for a guiding organization or individual guides to run a climb this way. Finally, multiple guides and clients left other people on their own on several occasions through the whole saga, both on the way up and down. Unless at risk of imminent incapacity and death yourself, as long as someone is on his or her feet, you just do not leave them out in the mountains. Period.
Yep. With Hall recklessly taking Hansen to the summit and then Andy Hall going up to try to help Rob, two of three Adventure Consultants guides were unavailable to help the rest of the clients.
exactly right. I think Jon being just a client was not there to save other clients. If Yasuko started to flag she and Jon may have concluded quite reasonably that Groom, Harris or Hall would soon be down to collect stragglers. Meanwhile as we now know Hall and Harris never came back down and that blame lies surely with Rob. Rob made a decision regarding Doug that then lead to Andy going back up and the flow on effect was Rob's clients not getting the expert guiding down they needed.
@@davidgeisler9885 True enough, it was the responsibility of the guides to make a plan, communicate it, and implement their part of it. But it was obvious all day long that wasn't happening, so not being a paid guide himself does not absolve Krakauer from the human responsibility to another person nearby in very challenging conditions, soon to be or after dark. Mountaineering history is full of examples of people rising to the occasion and doing everything humanly possible to save someone else, regardless of roles. It didn't always work, but you try anyway, as long as that person is mobile. And if not, then you try everything humanly possible to go get help and bring it back. That didn't happen on that date on Everest. Consider the near first ascent of the Central Pillar of Freney: Bonatti and everyone struggled virtually to the last breath to get the whole party back alive. Absent that commitment, there wouldn't have been a single survivor. Client, guide, just a climber, roles don't matter in such circumstances.
@@7phyton they were strung out all over the climb from top to bottom some waiting for Rob and Scott under instruction. Any client that was able to descended the hell out of there on the already prepared fixed ropes as they would have been told to do. Otherwise there'd have been more deaths. That's totally different to a climbing group handling a new route with no fixed ropes working together!
@@7phyton and it wasn’t obvious all day long to other climbers that all hell was about to break loose. About 4pm the storm struck. Scott had fallen fatally ill only shortly before and it was the storm that trapped Rob and Andy high up. To think JK at 2pm
Is meant to have either foreseen this or waited around in case it id, is plain ridiculous.
Lou Kasischke made it clear in his book After The Wind that Jon Krakauer abandoned Yasuko Namba. It's a shame that for so many people, Krakauer's version of the events of May 10 1996 is the definitive account.
That final sentence is such a gut punch 😢
It is really sad that in all the recent videos I saw about that event nobody but you mentioned the contradictions anout the decent or the oxygen story...
This is absolutely fascinating stuff!
Groom and Krakauer ... it really gets to the heart of the Namba descent matter. My view is that, in general, Krakauer did not have a responsibility to Namba or any other client because he was neither a Guide or Team Leader. Did Krakauer have Groom's blessing to head out ahead and by himself leaving Groom ( a guide ) and the Team Leader ( Hall ) and Harris ( guide ) to caretake any stragglers? Only those two know whether Krakauer had Groom's approval. One factor that is potentially not in Krakauer's favour is Groom giving his Oxygen bottle to Krakauer. Was getting additional oxygen an implied change in role for Krakauer ( Groom may be implying to Krakauer ... here's my oxygen buddy, "now I have none" so you better use the Oxygen wisely and also help the other climbers because, with no Oxygen, my ability to help/guide goes down considerably ). We are guessing how Namba was left alone. Groom knows. It is up to Groom to either say exactly how Namba ( his charge ) was left alone or say that it is in the best interest of all to leave 1996 matters alone. The finger would point to either Krakauer ( not a guide ) or to Groom ( a guide ). Left unsaid is that all of Fischer's team and client's survived except for Fischer ( Fischer went into the climb overly tired and perhaps somewhat sickly is my understanding ) while Hall died, his guide Harris died and two of Hall's clients died. On top of the deaths on Hall's team, Hall's client Beck Weathers was left for hours and hours and hours standing around in the death zone awaiting Hall to return to him to guide him down. One has to come to an understanding that Hall struggled to lead that day thus his team and guides did not get the leadership the situation required.
I think the question is whether Krakauer was using a spare oxygen bottle that otherwise could have been given to Namba, putting him into a position to assume some responsibility for her safety. Krakauer has never elaborated on how he ended up with oxygen after running out earlier, and no one else was willing to more than suggest where he acquired it.
So glad I found this channel, but now I've binge watched all the videos I'm hungry for more.
My understanding is that empathy is one of the first cognitive functions that is affected in the Death Zone, presumably due to the debilitating effects of altitude. In addition, people typically become focused on their own needs primarily when facing a life-or-death situation. Finally, the guides clearly had a higher duty of care than the clients; Krakauer was a client, not a guide, even if he wasn't paying out of his own pocket.
The difference between Groom's understanding, that he was sending Namba down with Krakauer, and Krakauer's explanation, that he was descending on his own with Namba (and Groom?) following behind, can simply be a combination of mutual misunderstanding and Krakauer's fight-or--flight tunnel vision by this point.
All of this helps understand why Krakauer (perhaps) behaved in a manner that seems callous in the cold light of day. I suspect that I would have behaved no better and it's impossible for me to condemn a person given that likelihood. Krakauer never helped his case, however, by his criticisms of Anatoli Boukreev and Sandy Hill Pittman which were startlingly ill-judged given his own profoundly unheroic actions on the day.
All good, but simply "talking past" what I put in the video. I explained all of that. What you should address is why Krakauer didn't say, "I remember descending alone with out Namba., However, Groom has a different recollection of us descending together." The only way a reader of Krakauer would be able to learn the important lessons you offer about "empathy" and "memory" is if they also purchased and read Groom's account and had the wherewithal to spot that the point of departure of of Krakauer and Namba differed significantly in the two books.
But Krakauer not only did not do that, he strongly implied to his readers that his account and Groom's account agreed when he criticized Boukreev for not including it. So, you need to state why Krakauer criticized Boukreev for not including it when Krakauer didn't include it himself. Perhaps talk about "empathy." And note that Krakauer did not write his book at altitude.
You should also address Krakauer's statements that his book reflects what really happened. “Anyone who goes to that movie and wants a fact-based account should read ‘Into Thin Air.’” Krakauer did not talk about empathy and poor memories . Even almost 20 years later, Krakauer was still saying his book has the "facts." It does not.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you so much for replying - I really appreciate it. The only written source on this incident that I have consulted is Graham Ratcliffe's "A Day to Die For", which I read because I know his climbing companion from that expedition. They were stuck in camp 4 on the night of the storm. That account is very strongly "pro Boukreev", criticises Krakauer for just collapsing in his tent instead of (at the least) telling others what was happening, and is most focused on the possibility that the IMAX team and at least one of the commercial teams had access to a storm weather forecast and didn't pass it on. Otherwise, I am afraid I am reliant on you for untangling the facts, which you seem to have done admirably.
You ask me to speculate on why Krakauer didn't point out that he and Groom differed in their recollections. Your analysis seems pretty good and I don't want to be criticised further just for repeating what you have already said. Regarding Boukreev, I have no time for any of Krakauer's criticisms of Boukreev, this one included. In my eyes and, more importantly, the eyes of his fellow professional mountaineers, Boukreev was a hero who died tragically early, and is unable to be here to defend his own reputation.
I have never read Krakauer's "Into Thin Air" and have no interest in doing so. I watched "Everest" when it came out but focused on it as a fictionalised representation of a tragedy, not as a documentary.
I appreciate the work you put down gratefully and looking forward to learn and get new insight about these tragic events.
I'm shocked to find out so much "everything but the truth tape-salad" going on, to hide selfish reasons in high altitudes. It feels like "Into Thin Air" been held up and shaken, making all letters falling down into something looking like a broken cuckoo's nest...
I'm happy you sort them out.
If you can save another's life, paying or not, it is your duty as a human being. I understand that if you are concerned about your own safety, I understand it is a tough choice. I am sure Krakauer's brain was not working. If he said that if he thought he would die if he stayed with Namba, right or wrong, I would understand. I respect Simon Yates not denying that he cut Joe Simpson's rope for his own survival.
Well put. But I suspect that Krakauer’s editors wouldn’t have liked their author acknowledging responsibility for a somewhat understandable failing like this. Can’t risk sales revenue suffering from the potential readership’s dim view of the author’s morals.
@samiamgreeneggsandham7587 I'm not sure he was wrong for leaving her, but did he need to paint her as incompetent and lie about her in his book?
@@Tenebarum I suspect Jon K will take the details about his descent with Yasuko to his grave. If she'd hit the proverbial wall and began collapsing in his presence, he'd likely have remembered to include that detail in Into Thin Air. More plausibly, she hit that wall after JK was no longer in her vicinity.
@brucerorty4014 Yes. But he did lie about her abilities. He said she didn't know how to use crampons. Now in 1996 the average person would believe that. But the average person today only has to Google which of the seven summits require crampons. Since Denali is one,We can deduce she was familiar with crampons.
Beck said there were people up there who did things they weren't proud of. I wonder if he was speaking of Krakauer . Seems like the guy spent a lot of time sniping about amateur climbers, yet when the shit hit the fan, he became one of them.
@@Tenebarum The upper reaches on Denali's W Rib Route require solid cramponing skills. Vinson, too. Yasuko was very competent but maybe a tad slow. That's a good deduction about Beck, he didn't want to point a finger specifically. And ditto for Yasuko's husband not publicly calling anyone out that I'm aware of. It's said that Carlos Castaneda's books gradually came to be viewed as fictional, but still meritorious. The same cannot be said for ITA, where many lies sting,
It never ceases to amaze me how captivated people (including myself) are by the 96 storm. It always stuck out to me that JK made it down before everyone else he summitted with. Not because I found it suspicious, just that he made it out fine. I did think he went way overboard in his criticism of Anatoli. He does the same thing to the kid in into the wild. Its such a gross and needless habit of his, criticizing deceased people. Someone else in a comment somewhere said it well about thin air and how his writing style is the main character. Its actually not hard to picture him, skilled as he is, abandoning Namba to save himself. This is a heavy accusation though. I wonder if JK will respond.
Always fascinating and insightful.Thanks.
Super sleuth at it again, amazing work! His actions seem more like that of a novice at best, but knowing he was an experienced climber and fully capable to help, but chose not to, makes it even worse in my book.
I am struggling here with the blaming of Jon for the plight of Yasuko when we know that above them Rob, Andy and Groom were getting caught up in a tragedy of most likely Rob's causation due to decisions he was making regarding Doug Hansen. I think it is reasonable that Rob's clients would have assumed that if they were struggling they could sit put and get helped down by Groom, Andy and Rob. Rob in fact told Beck to wait for him. This may in fact have been what they were told before they started. To say in hindsight that Jon could have known that Rob and Andy would never return to help anyone is a little unfair. So many elements went wrong that day but to me I always turn the spotlight on the guys running these shows.
Then remember the storm hit in all its fury after Jon has completed his climb and it was the storm that was the cause of Yasuko then dying due to her, like others, getting trapped on the south col not knowing where camp was.
To say that all comes back to actions of Jon hours earlier feels like unnecessary.
Also, it sounds like many climbers past Yasuko and "left her". All would have assumed Rob and Andy would have taken care of her when they were arrived.
There is no "blaming of Jon for the plight of Yasuko." There is blaming Jon Krakauer for claiming to be an investigative journalist and then providing either a false account which contradicts Groom's account or blaming Boukreev for not using Groom's account when Krakauer claims it is not accurate. You probably need to watch the video again, as you seem to have missed the point.
Jon Krakauer criticized Boukreev for not using Groom's account --- that is what kicked off the video. That is why I made the video. Not because of something Krakauer did in 1996 while cimbing, but because of something Krakauer wrote in 1999. What he wrote is that Groom's account was accurate and be blamed Boukreev for not including it because, according to Krakauer, it would make Boukreev look bad.
Ok. Great. I accept that as true. Groom's account is accurate -- just like Krakauer says. And it makes Boukreev look bad -- just like Krakauer says.
However, Groom's account makes Krakauer look far worse. In Groom's account, Krakauer abandoned Yasuko. Ok. No problem, that was all Rob Halls fault, or no one's fault. No one said Krakauer was supposed to save Yasuko. What Jon Krakauer did say is that he reported honestly. And that is simply not possible if Groom's account is correct.
The criticism of Krakauer is not that he abandoned Yasuko. It is that he wrote a book purporting to be the truth when it was not. He then criticized someone else for not accepting Groom's account when Krakauer himself has a completely different account from Groom. I then explain why I believe Groom's account and state that Krakauer fabricated his account in order to avoid telling the hard truths about why he abandoned Yasuko.
This was not something he did on the mountain. He had years to think about it, had an editor, and he had a copy of Groom's book. At the very least, he should have said, "I don't blame Boukreev for not including Groom's account because Groom's account is completely false as it has me descending with Yasuko when I left her over a hour prior to that." He didn't write that. Instead, he wrote that it was accurate and he remembered seeing something that he could not have seen if his own original version was accurate.
Many other people passed Yasuko and left her. The difference is that they were honest about it. That is why I read the last line from Beidleman. He left Yasuko. No questions asked. He left her. Tough call. But, unlike Krakauer, he told the truth about it. That is what this video is about. It is that Krakauer's version is not accurate and he told everyone it was.
@@michaeltracy2356 At some point in the video you say things like Jon "abandoned" her and imply she would have lived had Jon stayed with he, ie he was responsible for her death. I am not sure that's a fair assessment of his role on the day and what he knew at the time.
Your premise is that Jon's actions are explained by him wanting to hide that he left Yasuko. When I would question whether that is anything he needs to "hide" because that implies he did something wrong by continuing onto camp.
I think Jon as a climber and client was perfectly in his reasonable rights to push on down if he felt able to rather than hand hold a fellow client, risking his own life, knowing the actual guides whose job that actually was were meant to be following down soon. Instead stupid decisions were being made by those guides higher up the mountain. Rob;'s clients were stranded ultimately by Rob who got himself stuck too high with a sick client he could not get down.
If not for the storm I think Yasuko survives because then Rob and Andy would have descended to help. If for the storm but not for Rob getting Doug to the top I think Yasuko also survives again because Rob and Andy are present to do their actual jobs!
I am happy to rewatch the ending as I admit I did miss your point about Beidleman.
I take your point that Jon may have felt that his actions regarding Yasuko, whilst reasonable, could have been construed differently and may wish spin a version that suits.
My view on books about that day is that ultimately everyone may have a motive to spin things in a certain direction because everyone involved would feel guilty regarding what they could have done differently. But also that memories and are shaky and events were traumatic and chaotic. Everyone is telling their version of events without there being one agreed source of truth we can judge any one story against.
But I appreciate you probably agree with all that and instead are commenting on Jon's subsequent actions as a writer.
There is a difference between "spin" and "fabrication." Spin is to put a certain emphasis and analysis on facts. That is not what Krakauer did. Instead, he fabricated a version so that he did not have to spin anything. In his version, he left them at the steps below South Summit and just went down to his tent. Nothing to explain. Nothing to spin.
In contrast, Krakauer did "spin" Rob Hall's mistakes. This is not surprising because Rob Hall was paying Outside Magazine who was paying Krakauer. So, when you follow the money, you will find some spin. In Krakauer's book, he glosses over the fact that Doug Hansen turned around below the Balcony. Before the sun came up, Doug Hansen was headed back to his tent. Rob Hall talked to him and convinced him to re-turn back around and go for the summit. Exactly what was said in that conversation remains a mystery, but whatever was said, it killed Rob Hall, Andy Harris, and Doug Hansen. That Krakauer just glosses over this single biggest mistake is an example of "spin." He does not fabricate a version where the conversation doesn't take place.
It is the extensive amount of "spin" that Krakauer puts on Rob Hall's decisions that I will cover in a future video. But it all relates back to the fact that Rob Hall was paying for Jon Krakauer to climb. The reason people are unhappy is that Krakauer presented his book as a type of "unbiased" account of the "truth." And upon some detailed analysis, it is an extremely biased fictional account that was "paid journalism." As people realize that, their views on Krakauer's writing change. If you read through some of the comments, people are not too happy with the "spin" Krakauer placed on things.
In terms of different people remembering things differently and it not being possible to figure out what happened, you can simply look at Rob Hall. We know exactly when he summited. We know exactly when he left the summit, with whom. We know exactly where he died. He know exactly when he called for oxygen. We know exactly who moved what and when and where. Absolutely nothing about Rob Hall's climb above South Summit is in conflict with anyone. There is one version and only one version. And yet, he, Andy Harris, and Doug Hansen all died. So, it is not that difficult to figure out what happened as long as Krakauer is not inventing things. We have photos of the entire day. We know where Sandy Pittman was the entire time. Nothing Krakauer says is accurate. As soon as you throw out Krakauer's fabrications, there is only one version and everyone agrees on it. Seriously -- give it a try.
I just picked up The Climb, think im gonna give it a read. This stuff's pretty cool to learn about
Hindsight. Groom should have short roped Namba to Krakauer. I was on a winter climb once and had the leader short rope, one of the climber to me on the descent because the team had just helped him come back from hypothermia
This is really great investigative work. I caution listeners to consider the likelihood that the ‘truth’ of precise events is full of nuance and subtly in survival situations, especially at altitude.
I believe in veritas as a supreme virtue, and as a practical necessity. This analysis sounds devastating and it sounds dishonorable. I would like to hear or read a response from Mr. Krakauer.
When Satan calls up and wants to borrow my down suit, I'll know Krakauer responded.
Wouldn't everyone like a response from Krakauer, but we'll likely wait until hell freezes over...
Krakauer is a putz & a coward. Yasuko's husband & family deserve to know the truth.
Absolutely. There’s no way you can recount that experience with pinpoint accuracy. Really enjoyed the video but I’m having a hard time understanding what the beef is. I read both books and it’s easy to notice that both authors were doing what they had to do. Incredibly life-threatening situation. You weren’t there. Let it rest bud.
What are his socials? I'd love to get a lot of people to ask him his response.
I'm more interested in early Everest history, but I do appreciate your no BS approach to Krakauer's book. I read it many years ago and came away thinking it was terribly self-aggrandizing.
As an aside, I've just completed binge-watching all of your videos, and while I've found virtually all of them compelling, I shall now pull my hair out in a deep dive researching the veracity of your assertions. The main problem is they line up with a number of my conclusions, especially pertaining to Mallory's likely route and the fantasy camera -- my fear of confirmation bias is the scary part.
Please keep up the good work!
As always, your new issue is interesting and well done.
Love the analysis. Keep up the great work.
Well, it's really easy to condescendingly, in the LIGHT of day, to have opinions (when the wind is not gusting in the 70s, you are cold etc). And, just btw, it is rare, almost unheard of to find statues raised in honor of a critic.
FWIW, during the interview when Jon says 'we' got the first radio call, I always took that as a kind of collective of the people who were farther down the mountain. I recall Ed Viesturs commenting on getting radio calls from the group trapped farther up from their lower camp, and he said something like 'we got a call' but he wasn't in the tent at the time. I'm with you on a lot of these arguments, but that one just sounds like a quirk of language. 'We' for Jon could have been anything from 'the group of us that weren't stuck up top,' 'the survivors,' or any number of things, IMO.
Excellent analysis. I wouldn't necessarily blame Krakauer for wanting to save his life. These decisions come at a cost and survivor guilt is part of that. It's more about the fact that he "upgraded" the story to make himself look better.
@Michaeltracy2356 I've always watched, read, and visualized through other people on mountaineering. And those having the balls to do it. I admire those that can, those that do, and those that have tried and lost. But someone that claims and steals the work of others is damn wrong. Plagiarism goes both ways, through work or writing. You bring light and transparency to your sport. Thank you Sir
Why do you think Krakauer made so much of it up? Guilty conscience maybe?
For the Yasuko stuff, yes. But ultimately, Rob Hall had a deal with Outside Magazine for advertising space. Into Thin Air is just a very successful "product placement" book that is loosely based on actual events. As Rob Hall was paying for Krakauer to be there, it is not surprising that Rob Hall's team comes out looking better than Scott Fischer's. Fischer having refused the exact same deal Rob Hall signed up for.
@@michaeltracy2356 From a "product placement" perspective, ITA successfully glossed over [more like ignored] the 3 vs. 4 summit day oxygen bottle dichotomy. My homework assignment = pick up Sheer Will and see if it mentions the 3 vs. 4 bottle dichotomy? Groom, JK, and Andy Harris all ran out of O's for periods of time on the descent before nightfall.
@@michaeltracy2356 Well the product placement worked, because Rob Hall has somehow been put on a pedestal, despite the facts.
@@michaeltracy2356 Krakauer originally had a deal with Fischer then abandoned it when Outside tried to negotiate a cheaper price with Rob Hall. Not good of Rob Hall there either.
For future videos I recommend the 2008 K2 disaster. Still not clear what happened .
Indeed, lots of conflicting statements there, some make no sense at all.
I second this, K2 content is so interesting
This was epic for the book of Esther reference alone. Every single time.
Hearing these discrepancies is so interesting because I'm pretty sure the only version I ever heard was Krakauer's. I was always a bit skeptical of his views on Sandy Pittman, maybe it's because I'm a woman, but I always felt like she was getting flack for no reason. I also never understood Rob Hall and Doug Hansen's death. I've never been up there, but as far as I remember, the reason I heard was that Mr. Hansen had tried the climb numerous times and had put all of his money towards his dream of climbing Everest. He was somewhat super determined to keep going and Rob Hall was doing him a favor or took pity on this man who had a hard time climbing, and decided to keep going up with him to support him, even though it was too late in the day. A decision that can seem kindhearted, but I thought that it was a fool's decision, especially for someone as experienced as Mr. Hall.
I do have a question because I'm not sure if it wasn't explained or if I didn't hear, but what was the stunt/prank thing they wanted to do on the summit? Was it just never explained clearly what really went down?
Thank you for the videos, it's very interesting to listen to. As always, it seems like the words of those who have the least to gain or lose seem the most trustworthy.
What the stunt was remains a mystery. However, the importance of it is that people clearly knew about it and yet chose not to write about it. From this, Krakauer was not this great investigative journalist out to write the cold hand truth. The cold hard truth was full of simple explanations and was not that interesting. Instead, he ignored the "stunt" and numerous other major factors to present a "nuanced" view that only he could help the reader understand. A pure work of fiction that followed his earlier writings about other climbs -- in that earlier work, a former Soviet Union climber is also the butt of the joke -- Adrian the Romanian in his earlier work. He just used that same character developed to write a complete work of fiction that ignored the rather simple analysis of what happened.
@@michaeltracy2356 can one assume the stunt involved some unnecessary object that Fischer carried to the summit?
@@eljimberinoq5518 Very likely. Fischer was very slow on the ascent for unknown reasons. Various "explanations" have been offered for this such as his being tired, having a stomach virus, etc. However, these are noting but speculation and "heard from a guy who heard from a guy."
Curiously, the photos taken by Fischer show he was descending fairly quickly up until around the South Summit where he collapsed. If he were "tired" or had a "stomach virus," it is unlikely such a condition would simply disappear once he reached the summit so that he could descent so quickly. Instead, if he was carrying something for the stunt and he discarded it on the summit, it would explain the following : (1) why everyone stayed on the summit waiting for him for so long (2) why he climbed so slow and (3) why he was able to descend so quickly.
@@michaeltracy2356 Makalu Gau the climber probably knows...
I've read "Into Thin Air" as the text for an honors English class in college years ago. It was presented in a similar way. This analysis is spot on in my humble opinion.
What astounds me is that more people don't understand this is what much of periodical journalism and non-fiction writing is: find a sellable hook, which means drama and very clearly drawn, pantomime-level heroes and villains, create a roughly accurate superstructure of a story, and then add details to fit, the truth or lack of which have literally zero importance. People, I guess, assume if something makes it into xyz magazine or is published by xyz publishers, surely it must all be true. Sorry, nope. Not hardly. Few are as ruthlessly dishonest as an ambitious feature journalist/non-fiction writer. Except maybe their editors and publishers.
U the 🐐 on this topic
I loved the book when reading it at publication almost 30 yrs ago. I’ve read ALL of his books and find him an exceptional story teller. Over the years discovering how Krakauer changed much of the narrative on Into Thin Air during the horrific days in 1996….he NEVER openly talked about why. He wrote a story to SELL A BOOK omitting the MOST PROFOUND PART that HE WAS LIKELY PARALYZED with fear unable to go the extra step(s) for whatever reasons to help others and hide in his tent, (explaining years later he went thru years of PTSD due to the climbing experience) to a shameful existence he’s had to live with ever since. Telling the truth about “himself” during the climb just might have earned him the Pulitzer Prize. He short changed the story AND his personal integrity. Sad.
Now imagine him descending with Yazuko, running out of oxygen while the japanese lady still had a full bottle. If he took it from her, he would have had a much easier descend ahead of everyone else, which he did. And he would never be able to tell the truth, which to this day he didn't.
But looking at his character, it would actually be possible.
Don't expect anyone's memory to be perfect at 26,000 feet. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that high altitude reduces cognitive ability and memory.
Where did anyone expect someone's memory to be perfect at 26,000 feet? No need to share your "wisdom" with us in this channel. If something has been "demonstrated repeatedly," then myself and everyone else here is aware of it. If you have an actual point to make, please do. But your condescending platitude is not appreciated.
@@michaeltracy2356 Good luck with your hater videos. I'm sure they're quite popular.
@swerne why would you call them hate videos? He's comparing different accounts and photos against each other. The conclusions don't look good for jk, but critique is not hate.
I often watched Storm over Everest from David Breashears. After watching your video, Michael, I also searched through it. But it seems to not offer a lot of information about times, so not too useful to compare and might just be interesting to check on general statements of persons.
I look at Storm over Everest more as a tribute to the climbers. It goes over what happened and let's the climbers tell their stories, but doesn't get into too much details or any finger pointing. It's a beautiful work, IMO
Hi Michael Tracy ... i just watched an interview with Sandy Hill and i was wondering if you had seen it ? That poor woman has suffered so much as a result of these best selling books painting her in a very unfair way to put it mildly... Harvest Series Podcast Surving Everest and Social Death with Sandy Hill ... let me know if you have seen it ... thanks for all the great work you do separating the facts from the fiction .!!
I have seen it. There is a simple fact that misogyny exists in mountaineering literature, and Krakauer is one of the worst. It is not just Pittman that he belittles in his book. If it is a woman on that mountain, Krakauer doesn't like her. I think he singled out Pittman because she is 2 inches taller than him and that insulted his frail little ego too much. When you really look at Krakauer's writing about climbing, it seems like it was written by a 5 year old boy. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in his target audience that share those same values and are all too eager to engage in confirmation bias without actually looking into things.
@@michaeltracy2356 So if that's his attitude towards women mountaineers, perhaps that contributed to him abandoning Namba?...
Yes! So glad to see this video drop.
I am curious if you have (or will) deduced Andy Harris' fate? From what can be gathered from all online sources, in all but Krakauer's accounts he disappears on the descent and then either is confirming going up to Hall and Hansen or Rob mentions he is gone at 4:43 am, May 11. Krakauer meanwhile makes him acting crazy and then puts some stupid pointa about acting or failure to act. Also, in summit journals from that time, it was said that Japanese Association reported finding Harris' body near Camp IV.
Where Ang Dorje was on the descent is also unable to be deduced via online sources.
Krakauer's account is very bizarre. I'll cover some of the issue in the video about what happened at South Summit -- because as you noticed, none of what Krakauer says makes any sense.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks, that's great to hear. You are doing fantastic job at setting the record straight and I guess by your MO, an actual, reliable timeline of the events for everyone involved in that mess could be created.
Thanks for making these videos. I read Krakauer’s illustrated edition of “Into Thin Air” and it always bothered me that there weren’t more photos that matched up with his claims. It’s like Krakauer substitutes himself in the place of other people and takes on their actions as being his own… multiple times! If there is an account of someone doing something, Krakauer writes in his book that it was he who did that, as opposed to the person who actually did it. It’s his book so why not include himself in it as much as possible? Even if that means folding some “lesser character’s” moments into his “main character.” It’s beyond frustrating how many people repeat what he wrote in his book as if it’s undisputed truth.
Dang... he left her to die on that mountain. I've always said the guilty make the most noise. The amount of noise he made about Boukreev, accusing him of the exact things he was doing... I hope she haunts his dreams.
So why did Sandy Pittman abandon Yasuko like that! 🤬
People will do anything to survive, I would climb anyone like a ladder if I was drowning. Suppose if I wrote a book about it, I would be tempted to edit that detail out 💀
Yes, there is a UA-camr who stepped over two living humans so he could reach the summit of Everest and now make videos criticizing people for doing the exact same thing.
@@michaeltracy2356 he has the perfect initials, he seems to be full of shit 😂
The photo at 10:40, what causes those trail looking lines on the mountain? They look to be game trails, but there is no animals up there right? Or are those just trails from peoples routes? Very interesting.
Mr. Tracey, Do you catch alot of flak from the authors of the books that have been written about the tragedy that happened?
Im sure they dont like you poking holes and dissecting their stories
Me? I like you poking holes in the veils that have been lowered over the 96 climb as well as the expedition that found Mallory.
Thank you for this. It's one thing to not recalling correctly because of all the stress one had descending in s storm, but fabricating stories to hide one 's cowardice and blame others for one's mistakes? Not cool
Poor Yasuko! 😭😭😭😭😭
I think there's lots going on here. Physical exertion, oxygen depravation are significant barriers to good recall, but the biggest factor on memory in these circumstances is going to be trauma (of being in a life and death situation). Research trauma and memory. I think all of these accounts should be treated as at best indicative rather than accurate. Eyewitnesses of traumatic events typically make very unreliable court witnesses.
Certainly, but as I indicate, the problems cannot be attributed to memory because Krakauer is not remembering things. He is conveying what happened when he was not there and the person who was there says a different thing. If you watch the other videos, there are photographs which contradict what Krakauer is saying and in his own book, he places himself hundreds of feet apart at the same time. That is, he is at two places at the same time. While he may have been completely out of it on the mountain, it does not explain why he would write in a book that he was in two places at the same time. More interesting is why so many people who read his book simply accepted his statements without even thinking about them.
@@michaeltracy2356 Yes, I do like your videos and your approach of deep analysis of photographs, as they are a strong source of truth. ITA was the book that got me into mountain literature 25 years ago, and i've read hundreds since. But like you I started to notice discrepancies between and even within accounts. Then seperately learning about trauma & memory, i've come to realise that they shouldn't be relied on.
If you re-watch the videos he notes that when JK story changes he seems to recall the new memory very vividly. Over time you never recall events better, but he seemed to have the ability to do just that.
@@Gollumfili Yes, that's a good example of how people construct memories after traumatic events to help make sense of them. Hence whether it's JK or other mountaineers, i'd take their recall of events written days / weeks / months after events with a very large pinch of salt. They're not neccessarily doing it for nefarious or ego reasons, simply succumbing to very well known failings in human memory. The only after event memory recall i'd begin to trust are contemporaneous notes written within minutes of the event.
Terrific, deep research and reasoning. Thank you for investing so much time and thought into this subject to present a penetrating challenge to Krakauer's sensationalist and embellished musings of May 10th 1996 on Everest. He must be feeling very embarrassed. Strange that he has not yet seized the opportunity to fess up and to apologise. Perhaps he feels no remorse? Whatever his motives, he has brought disgrace to himself, his publishers and several, innocent "teammates" from The Climb. Bukreev had to write his book in order to refute Krakauer's wild allegations. That made me really angry with Krakauer. His silence in the face of this overwhelming evidence, carefully compiled, is beyond puzzling. It seems to reinforce the evidence arraigned against him here. As a journalist he has clearly honed the skill of "misrepresenting" events to shine the light of glory on himself. That is tragically cynical and unethical. What will he do now? Thanks again for such excellent investigative reporting. Go well. Greetings from New Zealand.
The blank 46-page gap between references to "teammates" subtly highlights missing factoids that inquiring minds would definitely want to know about.
Narcisists feel no remorse. Krakauer is a good example of such psycholohical disorder.
Book should be called "Out of thin air"...
There is a earth science book with that title describing the evolution of the Earth's atmosphere. I have both ITA and "Out of thin air".
As far as ITA, I've always put it into the same category as what passes for history in "The Crown", a slanted version of what happened but massaged to meet the needs of the writer, publisher, director, producer.
Thanks for the video, it clears up a lot more! Crackhour took some major liberties(Freedoms) in his writing. Can't trust a journalists writings for the truth. It will always be a way different story than any ordinary persons version. You know, (the truth..) I had no idea that he didn't have to pay anything, or even his company didn't have to pay..Crazy!!!
You make a compelling case Krakauer's version is not lining up in regards to his perhaps leaving Yashuko.
But I never got the sense that Krakauer said or implied "it was all Pittman's fault". He certainly said argued her inexperience and media prominence, and the pressure that may have exerted on the guides to push ahead when not advisable, was a factor. But unless I'm not remembering something from his book he never lays it all at her feet in any such manner as snarkily implied.
I don't know why I'm so drawn to tales of mountain climbing, as I'm terrified of heights & can't even look at photos of people on cliffs or rock climbing without feeling sick.
I read Into Thin Air as soon as it came out, and I can't overstate how disappointed I am to be finding out how much of his story was total fiction.
I burst out when you said JK memorized everyone’s outfit. Omg.
In ITA, JK states that, upon reaching the summit, his dominant emotion was not elation, but fear of the descent.
Perhaps that can be inferred, but his account on the summit is more factual. He was worried about his oxygen. He took 4 photos. Grabbed some summit rocks and stuffed them in his pocket the same way Malloy and Irvine would have done and then headed down. Of interest to Mallory and Irvine fans is that he notes putting them in a zippered pocket -- and Irvine had zippered pockets, a novelty at the time.
@@michaeltracy2356 Makes you wonder what would happen to those Irvine rocks if his body got thrown off or dragged off downslope by person or persons unknown?
Since climbers always abandon eachother when facing death. Why can't we advocate for solo climbing instead of teams?
Magnificent !
Michael, which books about 1924 would you say are worth every penny? Currently I am reading Ghosts of Everest ( I've started it before I've found your channel and I don't like unfinished books ;)).
This is a little depressing. Of couple of new books that have come out, they offer nothing of real value and one is so full of basic errors that are just embarrassing.
Ghosts of Everest is a good start. It has a lot of the basic stuff, and gives you a good idea of the geography of the mountain. But it was written when the "ridge route" was the only option.
Tatort Mount Everest is also pretty good. Written in German and Hemmleb is a terrible writer (Ghosts of Everest was ghost written).
Julie Summer's Fearless on Everest about Irvine and is good for a no nonsense book -- doesn't have some crazy theory that is the "key" to the whole thing like the recent books have.
Into the Silence is not really about Mallory. It is a three part book, first part is about how the British Empire works, the second is about how British upper society works, and the third is basically Conrad Anker's theory of that happened on the climb. Great book in hidden power structures (much like Serpent & the Rainbow), but if you just are interest in Mallory and Irvine, then you can just read Conrad Anker's book -- but see the video for how it gets most things wrong.
I'd also recommend The Six Mountain Travel Books by Eric Shipton, published 1985 by The Mountaineers {Seattle.) Shipton (1907-1977) explored the Himalaya and Karakoram in the 1930s thru 1952, had explored N and S approaches to Everest with Ed Hillary in 1951, and was initially pegged to lead the 1953 British Everest Expedition. My late dad gave it to me on my b-day in 1995.
It sure sounds not so good for Krakauer.
And to push the hero of this story, Bukreev, in front of the wolves ..
Looks indeed bad.
Poor little one. Wrong companion.
The positions JK gives Yasuko in relation to himself on the mountain would be almost comical, if it wasn't so tragic.
One thing is clear. Jon did not and would not, have offered to help the blind Beck Whethers down.
Though Beck was blind up there, I understand, from not having admitted to his eye operation. So should not have been there.
Jon seems to have sidestepped the request. Which, in hindsight, was probably fair enough. Beck couldnt have glissaded anywhere. Though Jon does seem to use 'avoidance' and 'inclusiveness' a lot, as rationale for decisions taken.
I assume Jon just went ahead of Yasuko till she was out of sight. Or if she had baulked at something or collapsed.
She was later swept up in Beidlemans meandering group.
Mike Groom was the only functioning guide of AC left. And, according to his book, Mikes entire time and energy was then taken up, after finding Beck, into getting Beck down to where he did on the South Col. With Beidlemans lost group.
Am still curious as to who of that lost group were required to swap tanks with who, and why?
And that only MM clients were rescued, when found?
He is trying not to look bad, but Krakauer is not a guide, and they were together yet still independent in getting back to camp. He could have got desperate or lost his sense of the situation in the mind fog and lost her. There were a lot of stragglers like Weathers and Pittman, if I were in his boots I would have thought it unnecessary to assist her. There was Groom, Fisher, Hall sweeping up the stragglers, all plans of sweeping inexperienced stragglers back to camp went up in smoke when the 2 leaders of the expedition dropped dead on the mountain like 2 armatures. He didn't want to put blame on the dead leaders/hero's for dying and I suspect it was survival and assumptions the experienced guys will clean things up that caused him to not play hero with a disabled straggler without oxygen. He had a hero and villain narrative, with the dead people are the hero's and the guide that descended the villain. The truth is the one thing worse than descending without helping is being a burden and resource sucker by not descending at all and making calls for help. He looks bad 20/20 hindsight but with all the guides above him he should not have been needed. He should have told his story and state of mind, but it would have made the guys who died look bad for abandoning their responsibility, their responsibility is more important than summiting or dragging a dead man to the summit 3 hours late. Bring back yourself and clint, give him his money back if you feel bad, neither has any feeling about summiting or money dead. The feeling of summitting or money come later and not at the desperate survival moment, if there is no later what is the point.
well said. I think some are taking the Jon criticism way too far. He was not responsible for Yasuko and he had no way of knowing Rob, Scott and Andy were going to die up there later on and not be able to help clients down.
@davidgeisler9885 if you choose to create a narrative of criticizing others("inexperienced climbers"), then you certainly aren't above criticism yourself and the major distortions don't help him in the least. You can think it too far, maybe others don't....so be it.
@@tonydrennan4948 I’d have to reread the book but I recall Jon being very critical of himself over various acts including failing to realise Andy Harris was in trouble. He feels his inaction directly contributed to Andy’s death, as one such example.
@davidgeisler9885 the fact is Jon was extremely harsh criticizing Anatoli and Sandy. Sandy certainly wasn't the strongest climber but was far from inexperienced, and he acting like she was short roped the whole way up and down which is proven not true, at times yes. And the criticism of Anatoli, was based completely on the fact he knew nothing about Scott s conversation with him on the mountain, when all seemed quite well. Many feel both these critiques are overly harsh, especially Anatoli, and in my mind rightly so. Did you read the climb, because if you did you would way more understand the dynamics of mountain madness.
@@tonydrennan4948 i even question why a guide was resting in camp whilst the clients were still descending, but I’m not a climber,
Jon had many times described Anatoly’s actions that day as heroic. So there’s pluses and minuses.
You can’t have that many die in one day and there not be some criticisms. As I said, Jon is particularly critical of himself for his actions and inactions that day!
Comparing Michael Groom's authentic description and Jon Krakauer's fiction makes little sense.
As far as ITA, I've always put it into the same category as what passes for history in "The Crown", a slanted version of what happened but massaged to meet the needs of the writer, publisher, director, producer. Sadly, this is what passes for true history any more.
JK is not a historian but a journalist, and those two things are very different. A journalist blatantly has a POV, one hopes a historian does not, but I'm not sure that is true either. Historians definitely have biases and agendas as well.
None of us involved in an event, especially a traumatic one, has the actuality of the whole thing, just our version, and badly remembered at that. If there are multiple witnesses to the same thing, they will remember it differently and once we hear others' versions, we mesh it with ours, discard what we don't think fits or shows us badly, and that becomes our truth.
JK's job was to write a story about his experience as a client of a fairly new but burgeoning business of Everest-touristing for a magazine. As a reader of the book, I found it engrossing, if self-serving and self-centered. I felt at the time, there was a lot of cobbling together of various stories, recollections, irritations, jealousies, and suppositions, filling in of things to meet the narrative. I never expected absolute fact, how boring would that be, but a self-centered retelling of a few very bad days on a very high mountain where humans have no biological ability to survive naturally. I expected nothing more, because adventure journalism is always like that.
Read RFS or EKS or even RA recounting of their various journeys to the Antarctic. They definitely have an agenda and a POV that often, especially in Scott's descriptions of Shackleton, that is a bit on the rude side. And I have my biases towards that group of Antarctic explorers which probably colors my preferred histories / recountings of those explorers and explorations.
Even science has its biases and as a group, scientists tend to be fairly unbiased, except when it comes to our own discoveries and then we are no different, we will support our side, our truth, as long as we can. ("come hell or high water" attitude in some respects. You should read some of our discussions, lol)
The only witnesses that do not lie are the ones that are recorded and are unedited or cut to eliminate the bad stuff or to cast blame on one or another party. The "black boxes" that we all know about from aircraft investigations are probably the most reliable witnesses to things, but even they have limitations and based on the investigatory body, the data they contain may be "edited" to fit an agenda.
Krakauer was spent by the time he reached camp 4, he was not there as a guide, so cannot be blamed for yasuko, clearly boukreev saw her as someone else’s client, and was too tired, and left her and weathers where they were
Watch the South Summit series. All Krakauer had to say was "My bottle is only half full" and it would have saved Yasuko's life. Ok, you think he didn't need to bother himself with saying that. But as I said below, you might want to check on who you are defending before you defend them.
TY 🙏🙏
This is off topic but, in the photo showing where Rob Hall and Scott Fischer was found, the location of where the group huddle happened, is that correct?
Rob Hall died just below the south summit, Scott Fischer was a little below the balcony and the huddle was in the south Col, near to the Kangshung Face, so all different height and locations on the mountain.
Whoa, the last line is really unfortunate.
Great stuff. But one thing:
YA-SU-KO. not Yasko.
I always knew that Krakauer fudged many points to alleviate his own survivors guilt, but never realized to what extent.
In videos of Adventure Consultant expedition participants, the "u" is silent and it is pronounced the way I do in this video. Krakauer leaves the "u" silent in his own presentations.
He’s pronouncing it the Japanese way not the American phonetic reading of it.
Does Michael Groom have anything to say?
He has some interviews out there on UA-cam, but he has not spoken on this. Given what he wrote in his book, I do not blame him.
Our canoe group was accompanied by a South Bend Tribune journalist.Our takeout was next to a bridge which we considered as an easement to avoid property disputes with locals. Locals showed with axe handles and immediately started beating on brothers fiberglass canoe and the reporter's wrist. Write up in paper was completely different than actual events. I had learned journalists have some agenda (search for fame?) different from most folks. Loved into thin air as fiction but have tired of Jon's 28 years of BS. Oh, thankful county police showed up b4 I rammed paddle up a hillbilly arse
I read “Into Thin Air” years ago. I thought it was a true account of what happened. After seeing this video, I’m going to take it down from my library shelf and throw it into the trash. I’ll replace it with ”The Climb”. Thank you for revealing this coward.
Michael, how do I get back into the Yeti Academy? It's not recognising my login info. I tried emailing you but got no reply.
discord.gg/KYdq8nJM
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks.
Wasn't Krakauer a client, not a guide? What obligation did he have?
Why don't you watch the video? It tells you.
Krakauer was paid by Adventure Consultants to be there. He was not a client
@@Tommykey07 He wasn't a paid guide though...unless I've got that wrong.
@@lesliegriffiths8567 I never said he was a paid guide, just that he wasn't a client. Rob Hall paid for Krakauer to be there. In terms of any duty of care he owed to the clients, I couldn't say. However, if Groom conveyed to Krakauer that he would accompany Namba and Krakauer consented to this, then one could argue he assumed the responsibility and then shirked it.
As skilled a climber that Rob Hall was, his leadership failure at this critical moment endangered his clients. By getting stuck up near the top getting a weakened Doug Hansen to the summit, and then Andy Harris going up to try to help Rob, two out of the three Adventure Consultants guides were not there to help the others on the descent. Groom had to shoulder the burden.
He was not a guide - the issue isn't leaving someone on the mountain, it's his publishing of the book.
Dang, only 21 minutes ago and I'm already 126th. LOL
Wow, I had only read Krakauer's book. Makes me sick I gave him my money. Krakauer is pure evil.....he is responsible for Namba's death, and that could have been written off as just bad judgement,. Except Krakauer wrote a book completely lying about it to enrich himself. He has profited off of leaving someone to die. Disgusting.
If we isolate just the fact that he continued on his own then yes, there are questions. There are moral dilemmas in many life-or-death situations. On the other hand, everybody has a family and the responsibility extends also towards people at home. It was not Krakauer's job to ensure that self-sufficiency and fitness of other clients is at the expected level. But of course, he could have been simply honest about it. Instead he came up with a cover-up story in which he doesn't have to make decisions.
@@baze3SC See, that is the big difference. If he had just honestly said, "I was concerned about my oxygen level, and the approaching storm, so I left everyone to get to base camp as fast as possible.".....almost everyone would have respected that. But when we now know he lied about several people, criticized other's actions in "not doing enough" to save other's, etc......well, with that, he has opened himself up to being called out for his lies and criticized himself for not doing the bare minimum to save others.
Who’s initials are TL and DR
Do you have an agenda? Krakauer states that accounts in his book were also made of serious interviews with various participants.
And when one of those people said he was quoted inaccurately, Krakauer ignored him. So, I do not consider it useful for a "journalist" to interview people while they are still on the mountain, descending in the icefall after a near death experience for themselves and having watched his friend die, and that is when Krakauer decided to interview Lopsang. Lopsand says he was quoted improperly but Krakauer ignored that. Might want to check on who you are defending before you defend them.
@@michaeltracy2356 not sure why after 28 years you want to berate a book that has tried to be as accurate as possible, it was also an international best seller, Krakauer never imagined he would have a great story out of literally “thin air”, unfortunately it unfolded the worst in guided climbing, and clearly showed that at 28,000 feet guide is an oxymoron, he wrote very well, tried his best to state objectively, and did not go up there with an agenda to find fault with anyone. Boukreev climbed without oxygen to make this yet another feat of his while being paid very well, ignoring his obligations, Scott should not have hired him, he was not the guiding type, Pittman was and even now behaves like an ungrateful Diva, and if these 2 had not been there Scott may be alive today. Weathers, Yasuko, had the misfortune of being in Rob Hall’s team, Weathers should have climbed down as soon as sight was becoming a challenge, Rob Hall’s reputation made him wait for Rob, Yasuko’s misfortune was Boukreev’s detachment from human obligations especially for clients that were not from his team. Again the above are my opinion, I have also read parts of the Climb by Dewalt, and several other documents on the 1996 Everest events.
Was he responsible for her life ?
Well, she needed more oxygen and Groom gave his to Krakauer rather than having it saved for Yasuko. So, you tell me.
❤❤❤
JK needs to come online and do a interview/confession here. I wont judge him if he is honest
The time for him to come clean for these lies had come and gone a long time ago. If he hasn't done it now, it isn't going to happen.
Anyway, the evidence provided here is compelling. I don't think we need to hear the words from his mouth
Wow.
"Yasuko was found with a black eye, and her empty oxygen tank bore the initials JK"
- also omitted by Jon Krakauer
would love to know your source for that info..
@@jjzap2935 pulled it straight outta my arse for comedic purposes
@@davidschneide5422 hahaha .. thanks for being honest.
I despise JK & anyone who backs his BS
@@birgitmelchior8248 love the wit, appreciate the smile