Response to Jon Krakauer

I simply do not understand this veil of secrecy. Now from some of your videos it would seem that Norton had some kind of agenda of his own and seemed to exert pressure on Odell, but why is never mentioned and there is no speculation. Now both of these men are long gone. This then begs the question as to why this secrecy has to continue. Of course it would cause a real stir if the success of the 1924 expedition is proved, and in any case Hillary and Norgay are also no longer with us, my point being that no one is, it appears, going to be harmed by this secrecy being lifted.
As stated, I am not a climber. I do not comment on the technicalities of climbing, what it right or wrong about climbing, nor the personalities involved. I restrict my comments to what is put in front of me and I am quite amazed that secrets are kept when there is no one to protect by keeping secrets, the main players are no longer with us.

" 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

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.

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!

not often, but occasionally, I find someone who I simply believe. Tracey is one of those people. he's way too autistic to bother lying

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

This was my comment on his IG. Thanks for sharing.

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

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?

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.

30 years later, sO mAnY eXpeRts

Youre a troll

When it seems the whole subject is top heavy with treasure hunters rather than the search for objective, peer reviewed, scientific truth an uphill struggle far greater than the actual ascent is faced.

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

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.

That’s gold, Jerry. GOLD!

@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!

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.

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

You had my attention at your regular calling out of Krakauer in the Everest series, but you have my additional respect for making a very arrogant man with a nebulous relation to the truth Very Mad

Insomnia watching this video

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

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

@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.

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.

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

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.

Please tell us mere mortals what your " agenda " is . WAIT ! I know ...your insanely jealous of my superior good looks even though you have no idea who I am . LOL !

TY 🙏🙏

Through a long period of my life, I have had close proximity to a compulsive liar. In addition I have dealt with so many more. Although they all have different personalities, when it comes to compulsive lying, some basic foundations are shared. They lie and they want to be the only layer. They will attack anything or anyone that goes against their narrative. Regardless if they present definitive evidence. They will also find ways to attack the credibility of someone that did something they claimed to be doing before. For example: let's say I'm sherring some of my experiences of climbing denali. Let's assume that this one person has also shared lies about their climb in denali. At that point this one person will spend time and energy trying to explain why I'm lying. Regardless if I have indisputable evidence of my story. Krakauer's way of behaving it’s not different. He will indeed go and expose other charlatans. But, that’s just because he wants to be the only one. He will defend his position till the end because it is easier than accepting the truth. I can bet my last fifty cents that the new release will be lies to cover some lies about other lies. But, because a bit of it will be true. One will have to go in detail through it. Because, it will be manipulated and the truth that will be follow my new lies.

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

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

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. 🤔

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

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.

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

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😂

There is something to be said for pure, sheer unadulterated autism.

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.

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.

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.