Response to Jon Krakauer

This video addresses Jon Krakauer's recent Instagram remarks regarding videos about the 1924 Everest expedition and the 1996 disaster. The discussion focuses on Krakauer’s critiques, the need for factual corrections, and the importance of objective analysis. The video explores contrasting perspectives on historical events, particularly regarding summit attempts by Mallory and Irvine. It also touches on key pieces of evidence, theories involving summit rocks, and the ongoing debate about what truly happened during these expeditions.
Krakauer's Instagram: www.instagram....
www.thecrimson...
www.screendail...
Analysis of Scott Fischer Photo: • Analysis of Scott Fisc...
Odell's View: • Odell's view of Mallor...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @michaeltracy2356

[@michaeltracy2356]

For a video from Adventures Gone Wrong that also points out problems with Into Thin Air, see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/raqUlKOFfpuZj9k

[@rocketrider1405]

She does a lot of good work!

[@michaeltracy2356]

I asked to borrow her chainsaw to cut this tree down, but she said he was using it on Into This Air.

[@msmacattack8017]

Yes she (adventures gone wrong) posted a wonderful video on the 96 disaster.

[@jackharle1251]

No worries. Your process buys credibility that others can only wish for.

[@jjzap2935]

Stacy is a good story teller I appreciate her work. Though for my ears & mind she would do better by leaving out the feminist bias.

[@spencersmith2458]

“This video has over 400k views with the primary demographic being people suffering from insomnia” -literally how I found your channel😂😂😂

[@golden1789]

Made me laugh too. Many times watching to relax before sleeping and fall asleep - such a calming voice - but will always watch again as I don't want to miss a word from this wordsmith.

[@BestOfSound99]

Well, that makes us at least two now.

[@chrisallen766]

Me three

[@TheSaxon.]

I've viewed the video many times but i must admit, i do put them on in the background occasionally, when going to sleep. It must be Michael's soothing tone.

[@kennysmiles]

I found my people lol

[@redlabel9294]

Not a fan of Krak... AT ALL. He's a narcissist. For years, I have regretted lining his pockets with my money via purchasing Into Thin Air. I'm glad that there are people like you who are countering his biased and stubborn narratives.

[@tyesalhus5604]

Oh boy Jon doesn’t like people disagreeing with him at all. Michael does a really good job with sources and explaining things so doesn’t seem like he has an agenda.

[@p2g307]

Lol, maybe to some degree but MT's approach (in all his videos) is endless insults and serious accusations about character, motivation, honesty, etc... and obviously he's never been wrong about anything and everyone is stupid and dishonest except him. He says pretty awful things about people constantly, can't blame them for pushing back. He is entertaining, brings up good points and obviously has something to contribute to the dialogue, but it would be much easier to take him seriously if he wasn't constantly slinging insults and mockery. Surprised JK even bothered responding, clearly no winning with this guy.

[@ryanaines6617]

@@p2g307Thom Pollard is that you ?

[@tyesalhus5604]

Lol Thom where r u?

[@p2g307]

@@ryanaines6617 lol, sorry to disappoint but I think Thom is a kook, and watching an oldster try to be a KZbinr professionally is pretty brutal. Doesn't change the MT observation, lots of these speculative types are like this, all agro and combative. Graham Hancock is another example, constant digs and insults toward "conventional science" because he knows the reactions will always be "prove it"

[@ryanaines6617]

@@p2g307 Thom is an absolute kook. MT only states facts, not continuously telling half truths or no truths, like the ‘99 team and others.

[@pauloalvesdesouza7911]

Nobody likes being contradicted, but J. Krakauer likes it even less. You as usual stays true to the verifiable facts, and of course your usual class. Looking forward to what's to come.

[@irenepinsonneault2740]

Have you ever read Krakauer or heard him lecture? He is funny, self deprecating and quick to point out a d correct mistakes he's made.

[@pauloalvesdesouza7911]

@@irenepinsonneault2740 yes I've read Into Thin Air and the other about the kid who went into wilderness and died. I find him a so-so writer therefore never got interested in reading anything else. Never seen a lecture or video. Good to know he's the kind of guy who can be self-deprecating.

[@Troublemonkey584]

Michael - I think you have constructed a fascinating and illuminating compendium of evidence in connection with the 1924 expedition. I've been enthralled by it and find your journalistic style to be thorough, logical and as such persuasive. It must also be respected that you have spent time on the mountain and therefore bring an authenticity to the investigation. I've watched the Mallory and Irvine videos several times and each time I learn something new. Having also read numerous of the books on the 1924 expedition I can confidently say that your take is the most comprehensively researched and compelling. If you were ever so inclined I'm sure that a Michael Tracy tome would become the definitive telling of this wonderful story. Fabulous work and I'm sure much appreciated by the community.

[@golden1789]

Seconded.

[@zfid]

Totally agree!!

[@OctopusWithNoFriends]

"Someone" needs to write a book called "Into Thick Skull" about trying to convince Krakauer to tell the damn truth...

[@namelastname2449]

Yes

[@lightspeedlagu]

Well played...I spat out my tea as I was laughing so much at your excellent comment!

[@OctopusWithNoFriends]

Subtitled: A Fourth Cup of Tea ☕

[@annnee6818]

If he knows what that is anymore

[@Jose_Hunters_EWF_Remixes]

Got no more than a burp out of me The group of people posting in this here comment section might be immensely surprised, but I am not deeply in love with JK In fact, not in love at all There does, however, appear to be a strong overwhelming consensus amongst the rest of you An irrepressible hatred for JK

[@Bearrtracks]

I deeply appreciate Tracy's meticulous and unbiased analysis of all kinds of information, and disinformation, regarding the Mallory and Irvine mystery. His criticism of other's research, and for some self promotion, is also very interesting and helps to dispel a number of prominent exaggerations and outright errors.

[@elijahguttman9289]

Excellent, Michael. I don't think I've ever seen such a classy response video.

[@irenepinsonneault2740]

Well, then, crawl out from under that rock. This man is anything but objective or analytical when it comes to Krakauer. And...classy? If he has manners Tracey forgets them the minute someone mentions Krakauer. He often finds a way to shoehorn some barely disguised zinger about that writer in posts on unrelated topics. Krakauer is self-deprecatingly funny, takes criticism and correction well (I've seen his lectures as well as read his books) and has already made corrections in second and third editions of his book on the Everest storm that he experienced directly. His Krakauer obession is getting so bad it's ruining this channel. krakauer's instagram was a clear concise description of his experience on Tracey's channel, which, as I mentioned, is jam packed with anti Krakauer rants. He points out Tracey's habit of citing his own opinions (even those with some research attached) as if they were facts. It is not a fact that Mallory and Irvine reached the summit of Everest, even if some of Tracey's arguments are compelling. Just because Krakauer is a bestselling author doesn't obligate him to write a book the way Tracey wants it written. It's getting to be like living next door to a fighting couple--I don;t care who's right, how about we write about dead people --who went missing from a mountain over 100 years ago--without mentioning how many mistakes Krakauer made in a 25 year old book? I stop listening to any post where he mentions Krakauer. He needs to get some perspective on this crusade of his, it undermines his credibility.

[@elijahguttman9289]

I disagree but thanks for taking the time to write such a long reply I guess? I personally find this video classy, that's all. I don't see a point in arguing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@CPE1704TK5]

@@irenepinsonneault2740Jon… is that you? 😆😆😆😆😆 anything but objective…. Indeed my evangelical friend

[@troopieeeeee]

Holy fucking shit I can’t believe krak acknowledged you. The evidence you’ve presented is so overwhelming and damning he probably should have stayed quiet. Guess his ego wouldn’t allow that

[@geraint8989]

‘They have an agenda’ is such a lazy argument, usually to avoid engaging in debate. I wonder why someone would avoid evidence-based debate…

[@iR3vil4te]

If people think ‘having an opinion and making an argument to support it’ constitutes an agenda then they get to dismiss anything they don’t like.

[@Antigone1Evenstar]

Plus, is Krakauer trying to say that HE doesn’t have an agenda? His whole Everest expedition was an agenda, I don’t think much has changed since then, give me a break.

[@MistaOppritunity]

It makes their argument easier to make. Even though someone having an agenda doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, if you don't know for a fact that they are correct, it lends credence that they might have ignored certain data points or focused on certain ones because they're trying more so to be right than to actually be correct. I'm not saying that Michael Tracy is doing that, far from it in fact. I think that Jon is knowingly more concerned about his public image than the truth, and knowing this, is avoiding the actual argument itself because he knows he will lose it. Looking at his actions from the perspective of a former debate student, he's quite smart in all honesty. His divertive approach to an argument he knows he is losing would serve him well in a debate setting, and his outward charisma really helps him spin people to his view. Dangerous for someone to do that in a real argument, though.

[@CPE1704TK5]

“They have an agenda” is only topped by the other one “who is they”. A lot of people just repeat things without wanting or trying to understand what they are saying.

[@benduncan6256]

The same reason why most people won’t engage with moon landing conspiracy theorists. It’s a waste time

[@laurageorgina589]

Krakauer should stick to the fact he is a good storyteller that sold millions of copies of his book and forget about trying to convince people he is telling the “truth”. After many times of telling the story of 1996 disaster in interviews including the account of the book, he couldn’t agree with himself which version was the truth.

[@CPE1704TK5]

Narcs innit

[@kevinshields1215]

Krakauer just posted a comment on instagram yesterday saying he’s making a “very detailed refutation of your claims and criticism that he will post online”. I’m very excited for the response😂

[@michaeltracy2356]

Well, he said the mistakes were easy to debunk, so I'll look forward to this list later today.

[@jimfree0]

Has Krak responded? Link if so please.

[@Angelsdemons679]

I think Micheal Tracy is on JKs hit list coz he is calling out JKs BS... Just like Anatoli B. Neal and the others just want to play dead to avoid confrontation and controversy... Its just too much hassle coz JK goes after a person like a street dog.

[@Leo-gx1ep]

Thank you for making these videos, it is fascinating to hear about Everest. I really like the investigative style of them.

[@jimfree0]

Love that a geologist was included in all the old expeditions - shame really they seem to have been replaced by unreliable witnesses...

[@michaeltracy2356]

Hemmleb is a geologist and was there in 1999. For some reason he just doesn't like talking about rocks.

[@sabineb.5616]

​@@michaeltracy2356, do you have a theory why Jochen Hemmleb doesn't like to talk about rocks?

[@aeromodeller1]

There was also a survey party on the 1924 expedition. Have you seen the topo map included in Norton's "The Fight for Everest 1924"? Major accomplishment.

[@jimfree0]

@@michaeltracy2356 Hemmleb (Msc Geology) never worked a day in his life as a geologist. He graduated into one of the worst commodity market cycles (~1997) ever that droves bunches into gainful employment elsewhere.

[@bolshoefeodor6536]

​@sabineb.5616 He is under an NDA and has been advised by his lawyer to keep his mouth shut?

[@moemanncann895]

“Into thin air “ belonged in the fiction section from day one

[@poc329]

I'm with Michael. Great truth telling and research as always.

[@OIICE]

If Kraukaeur really cared about the truth he would have spoken to Namba’s husband and told him what really happened. Instead he altered timelines and changed his position on the mountain to make a buck.

[@Jose_Hunters_EWF_Remixes]

Right, because as a client, and neither a guide nor expedition leader, it somehow was his responsibility to speak to another client's spouse Reading posts in this comment section has become a true strain One of the qualities I find most repulsive about KZbin is when people gather to trash the channel's anointed enemy Thus having found a place where their preconceived biases receive the nurturing they desperately require

[@davidgeisler9885]

Namba was not JKs responsibility. That’s one of the worst narratives to come out of Michael’s videos. Somehow linking JKs actions to her death totally unfair and uncalled for

[@OIICE]

@@davidgeisler9885why? Mike Grooms account shows them together. I would have had much more respect for Krakauer if he told the truth and what a terrible decision it must have been. Krakauer opened himself up for the critique when he deliberately manipulated accounts on the mountain.

[@OIICE]

@@Jose_Hunters_EWF_RemixesEdmund Hilary said that people had an obligation. Even if you could not save them, own up to a truth about what must have been a difficult decision. Don’t lie about it. Furthermore, the time between Namba collapsing and the rest of the group coming upon them was not that long. Krakauer reached the safety of Camp 4 before the full force of the storm. I’m not saying he should have stayed and died. I’m saying you have a moral and Christian obligation to tell the truth instead of reinventing a narrative that paints you in a positive light. Neil Biedlmen’s testimony is heartbreaking about how he had to let go of her.

[@CPE1704TK5]

@@OIICEwell said. Hero worship is getting in the way of common sense in these comments.

[@DesireeGonza]

Krakauer is an author not the truthsayer on the mountain. He is misogynistic , pompous and only wants to blame Mountain Madness. All clients of Mountain Madness survived. Anatoli Boukarev was the hero.

[@jackprier7727]

A.B. wrote a better book, too-

[@Jose_Hunters_EWF_Remixes]

Garbage, obvious fabrication that is borderline straight up lie Besides Krakauer, and despite Boukreev's heroic efforts during the most critical times, many others were highly critical of several of the choices Boukreev made in which he disregarded absolutely specific and clear directions given to him by his employer, Scott Fisher There is no doubt that Boukreev went above and beyond, literally, what would be considered humanly possible, and displayed great respect and reverence for Scott Fisher by returning to the place where he had been left in what everyone would agree was a hopeless attempt to rescue Fisher But, Jesus Christ, people, Anatoli was absolutely no... Jesus Christ, people I feel like I am at MSG last night awash in the staggering potentially deliberate misrepresentation

[@Peg-zl9lr]

​@@Jose_Hunters_EWF_Remixesunnecessary reference to politics. Shame on you.

[@kamakaziozzie3038]

⁠​⁠@@Peg-zl9lrthat side seems to be afflicted with non-stop TDS

[@Altropos]

I agree with you. Not climbing with oxygen as a guide against the wishes of his employee, returning to camp before his clients. This is just being a bad employee. I understand his idea of not relying on oxygen but even the lowest flow rate would have given him more energy.

[@csmtcqueen]

Krakauer should address in his new book about 1996 Everest expedition -- his sexism against Sandy Pittman (references to her love life, her wealth, her having a "coffee machine", diminishing her climbing skills, etc.)

[@scottsteed1098]

Well done! I look forward to all of your videos. I have long believed that first generation material is most accurate. Knowing what the Mallory and Irvine said and did is where we find the truth. Other first generation witnesses such a Odell is also vital. 2nd hand and 3rd hand witnesses have less credibility.

[@mathieuvalade9632]

@Michael. I"ve started watching your videos 3-4 years ago. Probably less than 1K subscribers when I started. You did an awesome job of building you channel. You have your belief but the Yeti proves that you are opened to comments and not totally stuburned ;-) For me having an agenda is hiding information to pursue a goal, your videos are based on analysis. Hopefully people will not steal all of your work and take credit for it.......good luck and continue! Wish I would have time to contribute but that is not the case anymore!

[@ccchhhrrriiisss100]

I think that the issue with the camera would not be that we could actually SEE anything on the film. Rather, it would be to determine through the camera whether or not the camera had taken all of the photos. I suspect that someone at the summit would have used most -- if not all -- available film. I wouldn't expect the film to survive (although it's possible that something could be ascertained from any undeveloped film that was stored well and remained stored well over the years). It's probable that Mallory and Irvine would have attempted to document their ascent (and a successful pathway for that ascent). However, the biggest advantage to finding the camera would be to determine whether or not most of the film had been used. This would be circumstantial evidence that the summit had been reached.

[@jjzap2935]

As far as the "childish stunt" Lene mentions. Having worked for MM at the time I know Scott liked to "burn one" when summiting which would make sense why he wanted everyone there to partake in the ritual. Further I know collecting summit rocks is certainly a thing for climbers because Scott had the all over the MM office. It seemed like he was teleported to that summit when he would pick one up and talk about it.

[@d-railg4302]

Get your clients high for the descent where most deaths happen? Surely not.

[@jjzap2935]

@@d-railg4302 for many cannabis relaxes.. it is a sedative after all. For example people under the influence report driving slow & extra cautious.

[@michaelpowell7697]

I once held a rock Krakauer had recently brought back from the summit and had given to his '96 trip sponsor, the owner of Outside Magazine, who was quite proud as he handed it to me. It was somewhat dark with some intriguing greenish highlights. At the time I thought it somewhat cool. But since have thought it akin to a small gravestone of sorts, symbolic of dark tales of so many deaths in largely ego driven pursuits in search of fame and green fortune...

[@jjzap2935]

@@michaelpowell7697 Ar you aware that it was Scott that originated the outside mag involvement?

[@Altropos]

I'm sorry, what? That's so insane, it's difficult to believe, even for Scott Fischer.

[@BeholdAPaleHorsey]

Mike, I have been a fan and sub for a long time now and I think it should be stated that our beloved sport of Climbing, specifically Alpine/High Altitude expedition climbing, is usually only spotlighted by the mainstream media when disasters occur or there´s a traffic jam near the summit of Everest. That being said, and with the already horrendous divisiveness that plagues this country, I would love to see you and John K get together and work together instead of bumping heads, as YOU BOTH are Valuable members and contributors to our sport. Godspeed My Friend!

[@jcarry5214]

I am an atheist who moved to Utah. I had learned a lot about the history of the state from "under the banner of heaven." It's a largely good book that makes a real point about how people can abuse a theology of revelation, but there are a surprising number of historical flavor crystals in there that are actually really difficult to cross reference. As in they seem to be apocryphal and their only purpose is to circumstantially create momentum towards a narrative conclusion the reader is supposed to draw. Some are ipso facto statements about the emotional state of the pioneers that are easily contradicted, some are ominous tall tales about leadership, some are vignettes that simply do not really match the general historical record no matter who wrote it. That is on top of several simple guesses presented as narrative fact. The more I write here the more examples I think of. I can provide details but the point is that JK is someone who absolutely includes very marginal or false statements to create a specific picture. In other words, Jon is quite literally the one who is "guilty of what he accuses other of doing."

[@redlabel9294]

Yep. His bias rears its head yet again regarding the Banner of Heaven book. Frankly, he's done a great disservice to even himself with his narcissism.

[@Jose_Hunters_EWF_Remixes]

Amazing And the precise statement of these easily contradicted facts?

[@jcarry5214]

@@Jose_Hunters_EWF_Remixes Apologies, but your tone is that of someone who is more interested in a contest than a conversation. Prove otherwise and I'll share 3 examples.

[@jcarry5214]

@@redlabel9294 I didn't think he was particularly biased about the LDS faith itself, but church leadership? Apparently never met a rumor he didn't like. I am pretty much anti-religion in general, and I am not a fan of the LDS church, but some of what he says about Brigham Young and church behavior at the time, I've simply not been able to replicate from another source.

[@CPE1704TK5]

@@jcarry5214 liked this comment so much I subbed. Have you ever thought of doing opinion piece vids?

[@carolbradley4845]

I’m so grateful to Michael for sharing the TRUTH! Thank you 😊

[@billhendricks5375]

Great video, fascinating analysis as usual.

[@Ohsobadly]

"Personal truth" hilarious that people think this is a thing.

[@beefandbarley]

Right? It’s Post Modernism taken to a delusional level. It’s cowardly.

[@Cowskiman]

Lol

[@annnee6818]

Well, personal truth IS a thing (perception, perspective etc) but obviously personal truth doesn't pertain to objective facts. One shouldn't confuse the two.

[@Ohsobadly]

@@annnee6818 " in accordance with fact or reality"

Keep up the great work Michael - source of the most thorough and insightful analysis of Mallory and Irvine’s Everest summit attempt available online.

[@golden1789]

You are an intelligent and wonderful gentleman.

[@rickgoede5237]

In the case of some mountains, a summit rock may not prove much. In the case of Everest the rock layers are situated horizontally on top of each other. In Everest's case, summit rocks are very distinct from lower rocks (say, from the yellow band or the north coll area). The relatively small summit pyramid of Everest has a completely different rock composition than any lower parts of the mountain. As a geologist I have only one caveat: maybe it would not be so easy to distinguish a rock from a location at ~8750 m, slightly above the last step, from a rock at the actual summit. But Michael Tracy points out that for a climber of Mallory's reputation the stretch between those points is not technically challenging. In conclusion, if a summit rock was to be found in Irvine's pocket (or it came to light they were found in Mallory's), that would be very compelling evidence that they reached the summit.

[@michaelpowell7697]

I saw a rock Krakauer brought back shortly after his return... I remember it as very dark with greenish sort of thin stripes...

[@mikeellis4345]

I was given Krakauer’s book years ago and read it as a fan of things Everest. I certainly enjoyed it then. But I will not buy another book of his. Especially after repeated watching and listening carefully to these videos debunking the lies in that book. As a career researcher I can make up my own mind - based on facts. Mr K needs to grow up, man up, and fess up

[@GWNorth-db8vn]

It was a very readable story, but I had the impression reading it that I wouldn't have like him. He certainly didn't like anyone he didn't look up to.

[@tropics8407]

As thorough as usual 👊

[@wildmanmountainjack3725]

The never to arrive list, from Jon Krakauer, of easy to disprove mistakes made in your videos must be terrifying. It's like the Sword of Damocles if it was already on the floor by your feet.

[@vic20adamant2]

Another fantastic video. Nobody could argue with anything Michael said here

[@ericclaptonsrobotpilot7276]

15:21 another reason to love Michael Tracy’s videos. He takes things seriously, but not so serious to make himself the end-all, be-all of Everest knowledge.

[@Sam-c7y9d]

You have never seen anything true or good if you think this channel is good. He is a braggard, arrogant, legend in his own mind, not qualified to discuss the real thing. Waste of time

[@ericclaptonsrobotpilot7276]

@ oftentimes the greatest people aren’t appreciated during their heyday. MT will be proven right. He doesn’t have anything to lose like the Nat Geo and North Face athletes do.

[@22leggedsasquatch]

How interesting, Krakauer interested in telling the truth. Hm... I see damage limitation.

[@jimschaffner1]

Just a suggestion. You mentioned about 6:00 or so into the video that if there were no rocks in Mallory's (and presumably Irvine's) pocket, then they didn't make the summit. Well, I'm not so sure. Absence of evidence and all that. It's possible that the rocks ended up falling out of his pocket during his fall, his pocket could have torn due to the fall or many years of lying in the high altitude sun and wind (Mallory's clothing was ripped, after all), etc. I will agree that finding rocks in his pocket would be evidence that he made it (assuming they're from the summit), but not finding them, in my opinion, is not proof that he didn't make it. Evidence, sure, but not proof.

[@michaeltracy2356]

Sure, I don't put every single detail in every single video, so I'll explain a little here. I highly suspect that if Mallory collected rock samples, he put them in a "pouch" that was word around his neck with the pouch resting on his side. This pouch is seen in the photo of him leaving North Col. That pouch was found intact, but because they felt something metal inside it and thought it was a camera, they cut it open with a pocket knife while it was still attached to his body -- apparently dangling below his lifted up body. It is that pouch that I am primarily interested in and it was not broken by the fall nor did the other contents of it fall out. It is not clear exactly what was keeping it closed, but they had to cut it to get it open. The metal turned out to be a tin. If that pouch contained no rocks, it would not be because they fell out. It would be because there were never there. While that doesn't mean they didn't reach the summit, it does weigh against it. The problem is that Mallory likely collected rocks from his high point, wherever that was. Many other items remained in his other pockets -- his watch, an altimeter, a pocket knife, etc. While it is possible that any rocks fell out, he most likely collected more than one rock sample, so while what you are saying it true, I assign a very low probability to it. It is not clear when the pockets were ripped up -- on the fall or when he was being pried off the mountain. Obviously, if they were ripped up on the way down, then the probability of rocks falling out goes up dramatically. Unfortunately, everything about the "search" is top secret and they won't even say which items were found in which pockets, much less provide a complete list of what was found.

[@jimschaffner1]

@@michaeltracy2356 Somehow I get the impression that the team that found Mallory (and the one that found Irvine's boot) are more concerned with publicity and self aggrandizement rather than getting to the truth. Money from book and film rights as well, perhaps. Thanks for your website and videos. I always had a feeling that M&I made the summit and bypassed the second step by finding an alternate route. Your info just makes that more likely in my mind. Quick question - do you know if anyone has ever climbed the zigzag route after the fact? I'd love to read an account of how that went.

[@golden1789]

@@michaeltracy2356 ...which is scandalous!

[@juliefaulkner5497]

Also, depends on the condition they were in if they got there, not sure collecting a load of rocks would have been a priority if exhausted.

[@aeromodeller1]

@@juliefaulkner5497 Oxygen depleted, less weight, easy to accommodate a hand full of rocks. Not a load of rocks.

[@Error_404_Account_Deleted]

That’s gold, Jerry. GOLD!

[@shewearsfunnyhat]

Thank you for another great video. A few of Krakauer’s books were on my reading list. But, his lies in Into Thin Air has made me not trust him. I took the books off my reading list for that reason. Actions have consequences. His lies have left me not trusting anything he says.

[@dreamingofstarlight499]

I think it could be worth reading anyway, if any to see what Jon says and how he writes certain acts. If you don't want to give him money, maybe see if your local library has a copy?

[@courtneyksf]

May the spirit of Ms. Namba rest permanently on Jon's shoulder.

[@Chris-CardVault]

I see all major points, were brought to light here! Very Impressive! Michael, when you started this, did you ever think? Things would led up to this? With doing all of your research, and putting all of this, out here? Im glad you did!

[@TheSaxon.]

Let's all look forward to Krakauer's thorough debunking of Michael's research, as well as his thoroughly researched and honest book on 1924. 🤔

[@samstewart4807]

Hi Michael, As usual, I love your videos. Here is my take on the motive for the conduct on hiding letters etc. To me, the only reason they are hiding these letters is because they( the letters) at a minimum allude to making the summit.

[@davidws6260]

Love this ... every time I watch your stuff I not only learn more and more but I know you only deal in truth and facts and nothing more ... the way you have commended 2 of Krakhaurs books without doubt shows you have no personal grudge as you point out... your only agenda is truth and these days most lies have travelled half way round the world before the truth has put its pants on !! ie into thin air ... I learnt something else too... Irvines zipped pockets ...ideal for rock samples !! Oh and one more thing ... summit fever ...I feel this may have occurred after they both summited ... and I forgot the 3 steps only being named and mentioned afterwards and not before ... I have some catching up to do but loving your stuff .. God bless you

[@MistaOppritunity]

Honestly I would find it strange if there were no rocks at all on their person. That would indicate to me one of 3 things. 1. their first accident occurred before they had the opportunity to collect rock samples, and they had more important things to think about. 2. the rocks were separated from whoever had them, either over the years, or during a fall. If Sandy Irvine's foot was separated from his body, it doesn't seem like a wide stretch of the imagination that whatever caused that occurrence could have rent his pockets open as well, and cause the rocks to spill out somewhere. 3. the Chinese did find his body, and took the rocks. Honestly at this point I find that the least likely because then they would have used their summit rocks as evidence that they made it to the summit unless they removed them at a later date than the 1960 expedition.

[@jinnaihiryu]

Krakauer accusing someone of "cherry picking evidence" is damn hilarious

[@PetesGuide]

4:51 If you haven’t seen it, Season 1, Episode 16 of _The Good Wife_ is must-see-TV, “In my opinion” of course.

[@nigellacey559]

I love these videos. Nice and clear evidence presentation

[@sdl1ishappy]

A big difference between Into Thin Air and the better works by Krakauer you cite is the lack of personal trauma involved in the others, although I'm sure getting duped wasn't fun. Into Thin Air is a case study in why journalists shouldn't write about topics to which they are too close or have been traumatized by. We're all capable of fooling ourselves under the right circumstances, and the trauma of 1996 is exactly the kind of thing that could do it to the best of us. Not that I am excusing the demonizing of anyone who calls him out, but I do understand why the projects differ.

[@RGBAnarchy]

" there is no question about it, they made it to the summit" I never heard anything like that, in any of the 1924 videos on this channel, or i missed one

[@badbeardbill9956]

I do recall it, but I think it was in context where it was rhetorical - that we believe some unlikely things while arguably likely things are somehow impossible

[@RGBAnarchy]

@@badbeardbill9956 i just dont have the impression im being sold some sort of "no doubt, they made it" truth here, let alone an agenda.

[@kevinrowandegroote5445]

@michaeltracy2356 you have built a strong and convincing hypothesis, but (and it may be this video) there is the odd non sequitur here and there. For example, if summit rocks are found on Irvine/ Mallory's person it would prove they made the summit, but the absence of summit rocks proves nothing other than the absence of summit rocks. There are reasonable explanations for a summit and an absence of summit rocks. They should be part of the evidence , not the evidence on which the success/ failure is pinned. Similarly, the argument in re: the mention of the Second Step (or lack thereof pre 08/06/1924). It's possible that it was used loosely in comms between team members, but focus was on other routes, and a clear descriptor may not have been formalized (and present in writing) until after that fateful day. To be clear, I find your hypothesis compelling and the strongest out there, but the above points may be some of what Krakauer is indirectly hinting at.

[@walkercustoms]

Thank you

[@BestOfSound99]

What are the odds to find more remains of Irvine, but more importantly find them in a state that could reliably prof the summited? Apparently the body of Maurice Wilson (buried in a crevasse near the north col in 1935) reappears depending on the season. I couldn't find anything on the state of his remains, but it could aid determine in what state Irvine could be. (And perhaps a interesting video too!) On a side note Jake Norton commented on the blogpost "a stone from the top" that despite not directly looking for summit rocks, they would have found them if there where any. I guess your second email is also sitting in his spam folder. However, does his claim have any validity? Would have been difficult to search Mallorys pockets and not find rocks in them? And finally, could it be a possibility that only Irvine carried summit rocks after collecting them or would it be a certainly Mallory would have carried all or at least a part of the rocks?

[@BestOfSound99]

I just read your comment to @jimschaffner1, so that answers some part of my question. I am still curious about your opinion on Norton and Maurice Wilson.

[@antonyreyn]

Yes they didn't just search for the camera as the cameraman found Mallory's watch in a pocket and said we didn't specifically search for Rocks but if they had been there we would have found them. Cheers

[@gajofre]

Krakauer putting "agendas" on others when he's caught red handed. A cat on his back projecting his own mind on others. If heaven exists, I would love to be present when Mallory confronts Krakauer about what he did and wrote. But It's just wishful thinking, I expect nothing from men nor heaven, the living just have to suffer the mess that is left. Michael, I'm behind you as a truth seeker, for howerver hurtful truth might be for some people. Kudos, keep fighting.

[@wakeizland]

I call this video "Three Cups of Tracy."

[@opowqte]

No one I've ever heard to date on the mallory and Irvine summit topic comes close to the deductive reasoning of facts as Mr Michael Tracy, bar none! So many that have criticized his work have not even scratched the surface with investigated research as he has. I will leave this there.

[@drewdavis1962]

I've read "Into Thin Air" several times and never come away with any negative generalizations about Krakauer. He takes blame, expresses guilt and regret, shows empathy towards others, and gives a perfectly reasonable assessment of what happened that day, given all the factors involved in the '96 disaster. I don't see Krakauer as preoccupied with any one narrative about his experience that day or understand why, given the inherent danger of climbing Everest, he is directly responsible for anyone's death. The fact that he was not a guide and got himself up and down before the storm hit and was too exhausted to support rescue efforts is not bad character. While I find Tracy's videos about Everest very interesting, I don't understand why he reduces the '96 tragedy to the actions of Krakauer. Criticism over imperfect conduct is one thing, vilifying someone is another.

[@michaeltracy2356]

Helps if you watch the video. Krakauer has already said he needs to make corrections to his book. In the video, I say the is great -- hardly "vilifying." Let's look at what I actually said... 1:03 so I'll start with a part about the corrections that need to be made to his book this is great 1:08 news and no doubt his publisher is thrilled at the prospect of having a 30-year anniversary edition 1:14 that contains significant Corrections additions or commentary in addition he seems to want to 1:19 tell the story of what actually happened at this point he is certainly not doing it for the money 1:25 and I take this as him wanting his book to be an accurate account of what occurred on the mountain 1:30 this is in contrast to the numerous people in the comments believing that there are multiple truths 1:35 and that Krakauer was merely telling his personal version of that truth it does not appear Krakauer 1:41 buys into this philosophy but rather wants to present the climb from an objective truth about 1:47 what happened so for that part Krakauer and I are on the same page and I look forward to 1:52 his new book postcript or whatever comments he has I view his statements very positively and Nothing close to the vilification you claim. Seems you have. problem analyzing things as you read Into Thin Air multiple times and couldn't spot the numerous errors -- errors that Krakauer is in the process of correcting. You will notice that what I criticize Krakauer for is what he wrote in his book -- not what he did on the mountain. Had he written, "Groom sent me down with Namba, but I was too tired to assist her so I returned to my tent," then I would not be criticizing him. He wrote something else, and it is for what he wrote that the criticism comes -- a point you also missed.

[@OIICE]

Because Krakauer lied about his actions on the mountain that have framed a narrative for 30 years. Michael Tracey has exposed those lies. I believe Mr. Tracey is standing up for those who cannot speak because they died on that day or shortly after in other climbing accidents. I read the book in college and have only been to the Summit of Kilimanjaro so I am no expert, but watching Tracey dissect the multiple flaws has been an absolute pleasure.

[@CawKee]

Could pouring cold water on a 1924 success be because The Alpine Club wanted any future 1st summit to be uncontested?

[@summerfirebon2362]

Definitely. If M&I reached the summit, there would be less incentive for Royal Geological Society to obtain sponsor for future attempts.

[@CawKee]

@summerfirebon2362 sadly so. I think that main route on the North side via the route the Chinese took on their attempt is now the approved route rather than a traverse along the yellow band and up (avoiding the 1st and 2nd step), could this be because the Chinese don't want a route M & I may have taken to be shown to be possible and therefore gives added weight to the belief that M & I successfully traversed along the yellow band and up to the pyramid (and or 3rd step) and on to the summit?

[@summerfirebon2362]

@@CawKeethe main route (NE ridge) is approved because a more predictable snow condition. You can see it clearly from north col. The non standard route of traversing yellow band to the Norton couloir is not taken because snow condition there can not be easily assessed from North Col. Meissner said that the routes from Norton couloir is steep and accessible depending on weather and snow conditions. In June 1924, the weather is nearly ideal for summit climb using the non standard route.

[@CawKee]

@@summerfirebon2362 yes, I'd also thought about which provided the greater degree of predictably and the lest risk of avalanches or difficult snow conditions. As a European I've been enthralled by written accounts of the early attempts on the Matterhorn, Mont Blanc and Eiger (North face). When the gear or climbing ability of the early climbing pioneers is called into question then I think back to first summits on the Alpine mountains, well they got up them.....

[@VK6AB-]

Krakauer dissembles in a manner typical of a tabloid journalist or senior public servant - yet he doesn't point out any specific point that is demonstrably wrong with the broader analyses by Tracy. By taking this approach Krakauer does his reputation no favours, more so given there are material issues with his account of the 1996 disaster and specifically the state of play in regard to oxygen. Fundamentally there is a cultural issue with many in the climbing fraternity.

[@lownote711]

I’m back into my every few year deep dive into Everest to feed my fascination with the 96 disaster and my newly found Mallory and Irvine fascination. I’ve found the content brought by MT intriguing and insightful on the events as they occurred but am struggling with the near constant need to assign motives towards others or dismiss perspectives if they are flat wrong in the manner done. I came to the channel for the 24 Expedition stuff and checked out a bunch of the 96 stuff and while I’d like to read/engage with JK on some of the suppositions put forward, that won’t happen because of how the ideas are brought forward with the “agenda” and “ego” talk that generally is attached to the questions. As far as my opinion on JK’s account, I generally have found it to make sense but have a few questions namely on the timeline and the oxygen situation at the south summit, yet Michael Groom’s understanding doesn’t simply disqualify JK’s understanding of waiting for ropes, especially if MG was under significant distress at that moment, perhaps his account is missing time etc. it’s impossible to know without audio/video of the whole day which we don’t have. So we all absorb ITTA, The Climb, and all the other accounts and try and piece together the truth of May 10, 1996. I wish that MT, again the creator of content I will continue to follow and watch, could find a way to add constructively to the discord of that day.

[@michaeltracy2356]

Well, Jon Krakauer has said. he is revising his version, so I don't see how that is not "adding constructively." The whole problem with your attitude about this is that the Second Step narrative was dominate for years. Others questioned it. I was not the first one to come up with the "zig-zag" route. I was not the first one to note that Mallory indicated that climbing out of the couloir was also one of his options. Over the years, numerous people brought up these ideas and they were belittled, ridiculed, or ignored. Jon Krakauer did the same thing for decades. Unfortunately, Boukreev died so Krakauer sort of won the debate as the "last man standing." And anyone who questioned Krakauer was belittled, ridiculed, or ignored. So, it it is a nice notion to say "Oh, why don't you just play along nice with the others." I did. For years. I reached out via email. -- ignored. I posted a blog -- ignored. I started making videos -- ridiculed non-stop. You can go to Thom's channel and see a "Michael Tracy hate thread" as the pinned comment. And one user even posted a very minor defense of my in that thread -- deleted the next day. And yet, most people do not accept the Second Step Narrative. Most people know that Krakauer's book is a work of fiction -- that is most of the thousands of viewers of this channel. Many people have thanked me for explaining what happened that day. But a, "Oh, Krakauer was just mistaken about a couple things" doesn't explain what happened. There are so many mistakes and the bias is so blatant that it is impossible to explain what is wrong with Into Thin Air without pointing out that it was a paid piece of corporate promotionalism. Again, not my idea. Wikipedia says as much and has for years. More importantly, many people see the bigger picture -- that many of the narratives they are being told had no basis in reality. It seems like you want to continue the endless back-and-forth where no one can be right about anything because ultimately it just comes down to two different opinions from two different people. I get it. It is easy to just repeat talking point you have heard some talking head tell you on the internet. No need to think -- just copy and paste like the human version of ChatGPT. Here, I challenge people to look at what really happened and to think for themselves about why people are telling you things. A common reframe is to watch what people do, not what they say. I get it. You want to continue the endless back and forth of "Odell said this" but "Norton said that." It's been going on for 100 years and has added nothing. All of s sudden, I show some pictures and read to people what Mallory actually wrote, and this is seen not adding anything. Ultimately, you are not a decisions maker. Krakauer will make whatever corrections he is going to make and you will just parrot those. I appreciate you taking the time to comment, but your attitude about this is the one thing definitely not adding anything to the discussion. Nothing I have quoted or found is some super secret. Most is easily available in online resources. Of course, if you did speak up and step out of line, the people you admire so much as the "nice guys" would quickly smack you back into your place, and you would simply say, "Thank you, sir, may I have some more."

[@tjpaxton1350]

Stunt : 100% success rate! Banner at summit? Group photo ad for Scott company.

[@kencusick6311]

Considering how little definitive evidence we have regarding Mallory and Irvines summit attempt, it seems highly improbable that there is definitive evidence they didn’t make the summit. The best we can do is assign probability to whether they made it to the summit or not.

[@michaeltracy2356]

When you actually try this, most of the probabilities got between 0 and 1 except for one explanation. Go ahead and try it. List to 10 possibly realistic scenarios and assign a probability based on how many people actually had that happen to them. The probability of someone with oxygen turning around at the first or second step and then not only falling but pulling their partner off with them from a relatively flat section of the mountain has to about 0.00001%. Probability of someone descending from the summit, at night, out of oxygen, falling and pulling their partner (who is also near death) off the mountain is going to be significantly higher. There just are not a lot of possibilities were your and fit climbers just fall down the mountain.

[@kencusick6311]

@@michaeltracy2356I don’t disagree. I rate the probability they made the summit as very high. How some people can think they failed at the second step, wandered around for a while, turned around and fell is, even to this untrained eye, ludicrous. My biggest reservation has nothing to do with climbing. I’ve seen wonderful and seemingly precise explanations of mysteries, e.g. The Somerton Man mystery, that seemed must be the explanation but turned out to be completely wrong. People sometimes make inexplicable decisions. Highly improbable events happen that undo the best of theories and plans. I think they made it and the I admit the romantic part of me wants them to have made it. I hope we eventually find the definitive proof one way or the other.

[@kencusick6311]

P.S. Love the work you do here. One of my favorite KZbin channels.

[@aeromodeller1]

Probability has nothing to do with it. Probability is a measure on an aggregate, the law of large numbers. The term statistics exists because it is used to measure affairs of state. This is not like evaluating the outcome of a mechanical manufacturing process. You would have to run Mallory and Irvine up the mountain 100 times, an impossibility. Their climb was unique. Comparing them to later climbs is apples and oranges. The individual case is unique. We are not all of average height. You cannot predict my height from an average. Mallory and Irvine could be one of the exceptions. Historical events that have transpired have a probability of 1.0, never mind the outcomes of other, similar events. The decision must be made on the basis of other evidence. Michaels thesis is persuasive, but not decisive. The statistic assumes that all of the climbs were essentially the same in some way. I tend to agree with the conclusion, but not this particular logic. I follow Odell's contemporary assessment. John Noel, "Through Tibet to Everest", Chapter XVII, The Culminating Tragedy, page 267-268. archive.org/details/dli.pahar.2337/page/267/mode/2up

[@kencusick6311]

@@aeromodeller1 Think about it this way: each step the climbers take contains the possibility of falling or slipping causing injury. Each step is in a rock or snow covered surface that could give way beneath them. Each step contains the chance the weather will change against them. Indexed against how long they’ve been on the mountain. The longer on the mountain, the higher the chance of their strength failing. Multiplied by thousands of steps we can approximate a probability. Once M & I are seen by O’dell climbing the third step, much of the probability against them reaching the summit has been left behind. The number of steps taken on the mountain is my set of large numbers from which a probability can be calculated.

[@THEYTHINKTHEYAREGODS]

My name is Paul and this is between Yall

[@aeromodeller1]

Michael, you have just as much, or more, credibility as John Krakauer or Wade Davis, based on your reporting on KZbin. You should not have any trouble accessing archives, except maybe certain private holdings.

[@Dennisthemenacecapsules]

What would be the alpine technical grade of the terraces below the second and third steps, combined with the zig zag route? PD+/AD-? Harder than the Mallory Porter on the Aiguille du Midi, or the Brenva?

[@JesperJorgensen-f6v]

You have a lot of recent photos of the terrain on the mountain, where you are discussing possible routes below or around 3rd step. I think you mentioned there was a lot of extra snow in 1924, that would change the low angled terrain around and below the 3rd step quite significantly. Slabs covered by loose rocks is simply a nightmare to climb, not to mention lethal cause of the stonefall risk posed by team members above, but when plastered with compacted Neve such terrain becomes easy ground. Could that have been possible in 1924? I guess Norton would have commented on such details and Mallory would have discussed it with him - just an idea.

[@neilkilleen3911]

Wait - Mallory’s body was found but we don’t know if there were rocks in his pockets ? Why not ?

[@elzarcho]

Krakauer got a lot of things wrong in Under the Banner of Heaven as well. He really wanted the story to go a particular way and he cherry picked his facts to get there. I guess never let the truth get in the way of the story you want to tell. He seems to really want to divide things up into simple morality plays with obviously evil people and obviously virtuous people. The true story with all the nuance probably doesn't sell as well, I guess.

[@grsafran]

His readers are average Americans who have been indoctrinated to see the world in terms of everything is either right or wrong, good vs evil, heroes or villains. He knows his customers.

[@eric-wb7gj]

TY 🙏🙏

[@ccchhhrrriiisss100]

Question: Would there be any reason why Mallory or Irvine might have gathered rocks if they had NOT reached the summit? What if they came close to the summit but turned around? Would Mallory have been motivated to collect some rocks from a location so close to the summit to be analyzed anyway?

[@michaeltracy2356]

Yes, they were supposed to collect rocks from their high point for the same scientific reasons. Norton/Somervell collected rocks on June 4.

[@ccchhhrrriiisss100]

@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks!

[@GizmoSeven]

To be fair the elements did a pretty good job of shredding Mallory's clothing and exposing large areas of bare skin. I'm not really sure you should say they haphazardly searched the body frantically for a camera that they probably knew was with Sandy Irvine. Conrad Anker had an interesting slideshow presentation of his personal photographs from the discovery of George Mallory and related his great respect and deference they treated the corpse. Conrad talked about the climbing tragedies in his life and hoped that finding Mr. Mallory that this could bring solace and some closure to Mallory's family. Conrad's book "The Lost Explorer: Finding Mallory on Everest" is a solid account of the event.

[@michaeltracy2356]

Anker's book is full of errors: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGingImanqaqf8k

[@stormtrooper9404]

Now its crucial for Sandy Hill to write or say some things...! Its due time... Her side has never been fully cleared all these years.. Yet, am more interested in hard facts. For example, if she used 5(five!) bottles of O before everything went south(pun not intended) on their back down! Non the less.. wonderful investigative journalism from @Michael Tracy

[@tjpaxton1350]

Who ditched Yasuka? Was JK left to die and cracked up mentally on descent? Until saved. Why does he smear so many teammates?

[@OIICE]

Mike Groom’s account was the JK and Yasuko were together on the decent. Groom sent them down together! Sometime later as the storm started to reach full force, Groom and the stragglers discovered Yasuko alone needing assistance. JK was safely in his tent. Do the math. I sure it must have been a hard decision. What disgusts me is how JK has changed times and his position on the mountain to avoid discussion of this issue to include blaming those that died. Michael Tracey has brilliantly and more important factually exposed it all.

[@tjpaxton1350]

When JK collapsed and Bookreev ascended past him, was he freaking out as just more pre-frozen everest dead meat ? When he got a bottle from Groom he had one goal. Get back to the damn tent. Every man for himself is the JK motto?

[@ZoubirKabir]

Krakauer could do worse than hire Tracey as his shrink.

[@dr.professoresq.8804]

Better than pointed barbs in blog posts dismissing your arguments as conspiracy without attribution.

[@jimc.goodfellas]

15:34 haha maybe but I have watched them with great interest

[@pfrstreetgang7511]

Krakauer would be a great hire for The View.

[@jcarry5214]

God that drives me nuts, it's just code for "I lazily subscribe to the dogma and agree that it's the truth [even though the truth has changed numerous times even in the last few years.]" By failing to provide any examples he's left himself uncorrectable. Super upright. It's probably pointless but I think it would be neat to see a timeline that showed the evolution of the dogma, of the bright ideas becoming "historical fact." Weather, ice axe, camera, body removal, 2nd step, etc. The Second step conversation here is a great example.

[@summerfirebon2362]

It is pretty obvious that Mallory and Irvine reached the summit in 1924. The 1999 team which discovered Mallory found the evidence either in the form summit rocks, camera, or missing letters to/from his wife. They hide the evidence because they could milk the mystery of Mallory and Irvine and made a living out of it. The 1924 expedition/ 1930s teams were also likely had evidence of M&I summit but hide it to obtain incentive for future expedition. If M&I summitted Everest, there would be no incentives to climb it and no honor for future expeditions. Frank Smythe told Norton in 1933, through high powered binocular, that he discovered Mallory body in 8100m. He told Norton to hide it from the press to prevent ruckus. So, it's evidently clear that the 1920s, 1930s, or 1999 search team were not interested in finding evidence of M&I summitting Everest. Had they found any evidence, they would not be able to milk any contents from the mystery.

[@mglenn7092]

There is one part of your post that I disagree strongly with. It’s true that they have no mystery to make lots of money off of if they instead come back with proof that Mallory & Irvine reached the summit before dying somewhere up there. However, that’s the real point - they died high on the mountain and never came back from their failed attempt to “conquer” the mountain. If they reached the summit they still died, and there would still be lots of incentives to climb Mount Everest until someone successfully made the round trip to the summit AND back alive. And that is also why I don’t think that it takes anything away from Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary if Mallory and Irvine did reach the summit before dying, because Hillary and Norgay were and are still the first climbers to successfully complete the whole climb (summit and back alive). On a side note - I don’t think we have conclusive evidence that Mallory and Irvine summitted but I also don’t believe that we have conclusive evidence that they didn’t either - I keep an open mind about that. After everything I’ve read and watched, I think Mallory was a good enough climber to have done it, and Michael Tracy’s comment about Mallory possibly being a victim of “summit fever” (pressed on to the summit well past the point of doom and falling on the descent, in the dark, becomes nearly inevitable) rings true to me - I still don’t think it’s as great an accomplishment as summitting and returning alive. Mallory was a very impressive, brave, stand-up guy - I wish he’d survived, and I respect his attempts on the mountain and his achievements elsewhere. But in spirit he is eternally high on the mountain and never coming back. To me that’s still a loss.

[@summerfirebon2362]

@@mglenn7092 All people who reached summit and died on descents are credited with the summit record. All sherpas, climbers who died during descents were recorded as having summitted Everest. It's oxymoron to think that summitting a mountain is a two way business.

[@mglenn7092]

@@summerfirebon2362 Summitting a mountain may not be a two-way business but *climbing* a mountain is. I believe the second record, the one for making the whole round-trip, is much more important than the record for first to the summit but died on the way down. I think it's complete f***ing idiocy to think that the ONLY thing that matters is reaching the summit, no matter what happens next. I also don't know of any mountaineers anywhere anytime who intentionally planned a one-way trip up a mountain expecting not to make it back from the attempt. If you know of any, please let me know where I can find the story and I'll look it up. BTW - that summit record also does the holder no good whatsoever if they're not alive to see it entered into the record books. Put in more recent terms - I bet Doug Hansen's family would rather have Doug back alive instead of knowing that he reached the summit before dying of hypothermia/hypoxia alongside Rob Hall near the top of Everest. Rob Hall killed them both trying to make sure Doug Hansen reached the summit in 1996. Summit fever. Doesn't seem like the summit matters so much anymore, does it? Mountaineers holding that reaching the summit is the only record, returning doesn't count, are just encouraging fatal cases of summit fever among their peers. When I look to challenging endeavors elsewhere in sports, seems like only mountaineering accepts records set in fatal disasters to be the ones that really count. In free diving for instance, it doesn't matter how deep the diver goes, even if there's proof they were still conscious at the deepest part of the diver and died on the way back up - you have to come back to the surface alive or it DOESN'T COUNT. And really that's it. I don't have any skin in this game and it isn't worth it to me to waste further time arguing with you on the interwebz. I thoroughly disagree with you, but if I haven't gotten through to you yet then I'm not going to change your mind - it's already made up.

[@summerfirebon2362]

@ It counted. Everest archive, Nepal Government, China Government, they kept record of those summiting Everest regardless they made it alive or not. Robert Falcon Scott is recorded as reaching South Pole despite didn’t make it out alive.

[@mglenn7092]

@@summerfirebon2362 So? Counted to whom? Surely it didn't count to George Mallory, Andrew Irvine, or Robert Falcon Scott - they're still DEAD. I'm not sure why you keep completely missing the f***ing point. Yes, if we find proof that George Mallory and Andrew Irvine reached the summit before dying, their names will go in the record book as first to reach the summit, and yes, everyone who verifiably reached the summit is recorded as having done so even if they then died high on the mountain. So, yes it "counts". I haven't denied that so I"m not sure why you keep repeating it like a broken record and keep attacking straw men instead of engaging my actual points. Which are two: 1. The record for first to reach the summit and return alive will always belong to Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay, no matter what we find out about Mallory & Irvine's highest point of ascent in 1924. That record - first to summit and return - is also in the books and counts, and it always will. You haven't done anything to explain why only the record for reaching the summit matters and returning alive is completely unimportant as a mark of achievement. There's an additional question there too: why do you think it would have taken away all incentive from future Everest expeditions to climb the mountain AND return if they knew Mallory and Irvine had reached the summit before dying? 2. The records for reaching the summit don't matter to any of the people who achieved them if they died in the effort and never came back alive from the summit. I'm also quite certain that the wives, children, parents etc would rather have their loved ones back alive instead of mourning their loss knowing that their loved one did reach the top before dying. More generally - sure, the summit's in the books if they made it to the top before dying. Why does that matter to anyone? Who the f*** cares more about reaching the summit and dying instead of having the sense to turn around before it's too late? Who would be satisfied with the summit if they also knew that after reaching the summit they'd have a fatal accident on the descent? You haven't typed in a goddamn word to explain why the record for reaching the summit should matter to anyone if it isn't accompanied by a successful return. BTW - since you brought up Robert Falcon Scott, he's actually a perfect example for this. Yes, he reached the South Pole and the record books acknowledge that. But everyone who has studied Antarctic exploration regards Scott's expedition as a failure. You might find a reading of Scott's final journals enlightening - Scott himself indicates that he would rather have brought his men home alive without reaching the Pole than lose all his men and himself on the return journey, and he clearly regarded his own expedition as a total failure before he died. But yes, it sure does count that he reached the South Pole, doesn't it? The Brits still regard him as a hero who died in a valiant attempt, but they regard it as a glorious failure not a victory. Now do try and explain why it means so much that he reached the South Pole before dying instead of being wiped out by a wild storm while he was still on his way to the South Pole? The outcome, including the way people look at his attempt since his expedition, would be the same.

[@benduncan6256]

How would it be a “near certainty” that Mallory and Irvin did not reach the summit if no summit rocks were found in their pockets? I can think of at least a half dozen reasons why they would have no rocks, regardless of what they said they intended to do.

[@michaeltracy2356]

Sure, I can think of some. Like a Yeti stole them out of the pockets. But for realistic things, there aren't a whole lot of reasons that neither one would have rocks if they reached the summit. Weather was clear, no wind. So, you have to use the facts as they exist, not "Oh, a massive storm arrived right as they set foot on the summit and blew them all the way down the mountain before they could pick up rocks."

[@benduncan6256]

​@@michaeltracy2356 What if they were completely exhausted and/or suffering from altitude sickness? What if the weather was so bad that they weren’t thinking about rocks on the summit..just how to get down asap? What if the rocks and/or the pockets they were in got torn off their body during the fall? What if the rocks were in a pack that got torn away during a fall? A bad fall on Everest can leave a body torn to pieces.Case in point, Irvine’s foot.

[@michaeltracy2356]

The weather wasn't bad. We have a photo. So, you have to be realistic -- the way I was when I made the statement. If they were too tired to collect summit rocks, they were too tired to make it back to the ice axe location, so that is also not a possibility. If the pockets were ripped off, then that is not the scenario I described. What I described was that the pockets were intact and none of them contained summit rocks. In that case, I don't see many viable explanations for that except that they simply didn't reach the summit.

[@johnh.eickert1193]

1924, 1960, 1996: Mr. Tracy encourages Krack to look for the phrase second step when writing about Mallory and Irvine. However, an overlooked word phrase used often ‘back in the day’ is straight forward. Meaning, the route is obvious. Irvine was a champion rower and young. The zig-zag route is not straight forward but the snow gulley to the west of the couloir is. Step cutting accounts for the lateness of the day when Odell sees the climbers. Sandy would’ve been able to step cut for days. Messner said he used the gulley because he could not see a straight forward rock route. I disagree with Mr. Tracy and feel the Chinese did reach the summit in 1960. Men then were far more ‘outdoor tough’ than now. Not to mention, what would be the life span of someone who lied to Mao? In 1975 Mao was ailing and died in 1976. The second expedition was intended to cheer him up. In Krack’s 1996 book, he took a huge shit on my friend Toli. Anything Mr. Tracy writes that refutes Krack or takes a shit on Krack is fine by me.

[@michaeltracy2356]

Somervell disagrees with you. He said the route which I call the zig-zag was the obvious route and he thought they climbed that one. Best to adapt your theory to the facts, not invent "facts" to fit a theory. Mallory said the "couloir" route was one of two possible routes. So, ok, he knew about the rather obvious couloir route. What was the other route? Where did Odell see them? What does that tell you? Men can be as tough as they want. Can't climb a mountain without water. Science > men.

[@johnh.eickert1193]

@@michaeltracy2356 Fact. I was in Kathmandu with my climbing partners in the 80's when we learned Messner was holding court at the Rum Doodle. I heard in first person his answer to the question of why the couloir. I did not invent anything but am thinking in critical fashion in order to account for the lateness of the Odell sighting. Hmm. Would you have lied to Mao in 1960? You young guys have no idea how tough men were in the 1920's, and I knew many of these men. Laborers who could chop and saw, lift and carry on broken ground for fourteen, sixteen hours a day, day after day on one cup of morning coffee. Qu Yinhua was one of those types of men. It would've been certain death by torture to lie to Mao. Men can be as tough as they need to be to survive.

[@TimothyWiley-r2b]

Although I personally think they summited in '24, we still have no evidence of it, the finding of Irvine boot and his foot, people are thinking it's evidence, but we will know nothing until they find the rest of his remains, even if they find his remains there is a chance we will learn anything... just saying...

[@thomasmclennon4746]

I suppose GPS trackers for Everest climbers would be out of the question.

[@Jose_Hunters_EWF_Remixes]

I find Mr. Tracy's work quite compelling and fascinating However, the fantweens who have gathered here to bark their unjustifiable hatred and disgust for JK is truly astounding Please enjoy the rest of your day Exit stage right

[@Handlebar-MustDash]

Love the subtitles for the fantasist Mr Krakauer - 'Crack Hour'. 😂😂

[@SamanthaHahn-e3i]

Re the "western climbers" terminology.. It's a bias I picked up. The Taiwanese team, Anatoly and Yatsuko Nama were definitely presented in a slanted fashion, as was Sandy Pittman.

[@badseed1262]

BOOM! It's not just about Krakauer...it's pushing these videos to the Krakauer fan boys and bad KZbin Everest "historians"

[@sharonsekhon9475]

Your approach to criticism is starkly different from that of Krakauer's. It shows intent. Krakauer is not a reliable narrator.

[@lulabellegnostic8402]

Krakauer can’t get past 1996. Probably because he hardly covered himself in glory. Now he is a self appointed expert on everything everest.

[@CandyGirl44]

I watch your videos keenly but detected a gradual bias towards Mallory and Irvine having reached the summit. In fact, in one, you were quite sarcastic, and dismissive of this not being the case. I enjoy your videos, and dedication, but that one definately left a sour taste. My personal opinion is Mallory's body was appallingly and disrespectfully handled, and facts are being hidden from us. The one photo being distributed of Sandy's boot somehow looks very posed and "instagram worthy", and being found on the 100th anniversary, warrants a deep dive. A genuine question - how does one know that a summit rock came from the top of the mountain, or fell down, was brought down by a glacier or avalanche, the weather or came crashing down with a falling climber? Why is it the absolute epitome of proof of summiting?

[@michaeltracy2356]

It is unlikely that Mallory would pick up a rock from the bottom of the glacier, put it in his pocket, and carry it for days on his trip up the mountain. Nor is it likely he only picked up a single rock. It is more likely that a Yeti put a rock in his pocket then him picking one that fell down or was brought down by a glacier or avalanche and it just happened to be from the summit. The rocks collected by Somervell were not from the summit, nor those collected by Odell. So, there is no reason to believe that Mallory just happed to pick up a random rock and it happened to be from the summit when this has happened to no one else in history.

[@hbdragon88]

Are you suggesting that they moved Mallory's body to another position just for the Instagram worthy pose? That would be really appalling for sure, but is there any reason to believe they did this? Has this been done before, by this expedition, or others? I do think the photo of the boot in the front and someone posing next to it is really in poor taste but not actionable unethical behavior unless they staged the photo.

[@Angelsdemons679]

Jk needs to address the elephant in the room.. WHAT HAPPENED TO Y. NAMBA? WHY WAS SHE LEFT ALONE BY JON. K???????? And yes I also noticed how he plays with words when he wants to deceive, even before I came across your videos. I honestly don't know how his book became a best seller 😮😮😮😮

[@pizzafrenzyman]

Insomnia watching this video

[@EduardoGR1004]

I love all this drama ngl

[@vivienj9072]

19:14 Michael says, "supposably." I support it.

[@mattiremembermasked459]

I heard something mentioned in another video about analyzing the soles of Mallorys and Irvines boots to see if fragments of summit rocks are in them. Have you ever considered this approach?

[@michaeltracy2356]

The idea was first proposed by Graham Hoyland. Even assuming the technology were feasible -- which it isn't, it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the upper mountain. Mallory and Irvine would have climbed a snow slope the entire way. They would go down and pick up some rock samples -- like Hillary and Krakauer did, but you don't walk on the rocks themselves. You just go pick up a handful and put them in your pockets. So, there never really would be any "summit rocks" on the boots. Seems like a idea from an author desperately trying to remain relevant.

[@Longtack55]

A century of weather exposure would presumably clean the boots. I enjoy Michael Tracy's dry observations.

[@annnee6818]

​@@michaeltracy2356 I was very dubious of this claim but I'm not a mountaineer so I didn't want to form an opinion on it just yet but now I think I can 😅

[@samstewart4807]

hi Tilman's father also believes the army covered up his death/ mueder

[@courtneyksf]

Naw time and time again it has been shown eating crow can't be done.

[@Sam-c7y9d]

Looks like many peoples opinions on this channel come from haters who haven't a clew to what really happened, many a climber has said time and again that his books are very accurate. This channel is a complete legend in your own mind waste of effort. You are no exspert and the reporting is done with typical arrogance

[@michaeltracy2356]

Well, Jon Krakauer said he is revising his book in response to these videos, so at least he is smart enough to see the problems.