Not to change the subject, but whatever happened to Tom Cruise’s master plan to summit Everest?
I think it’s on hold until after he completes the $10 million dollar Xenu proof bunker under his house.
With modern photoshopping particularly, even armchair adventurers can become Baron von Munchhausens w/ photographic proof.
When I climbed Kilimanjaro a couple years ago I was stunned at how few people were at the top (Uhuru Peak) considering that I climbed it during a peak season. No way on earth the success numbers for Kili are anywhere near accurate, and Kili is just a high nature walk without any actual skill requirement. Down at the bottom you could get an “official” certificate just by saying you went to the top.
I suspect a common tendency is to generally participate in a climb and let the story grow until you were standing at the top, especially for the average guy off on an adventure. I’d bet there a zillion folks whose friends think they “climbed Everest” when they never got past base camp.
In the mountain-climbing world, perhaps there is more expertise at vetting out who actually stood at the top.
Perhaps. But, logistics are an issue - as far as I know, above a certain altitude, it’s not possible to even rescue a living person in distress. I also believe that the helicopter flight idea is still just as much putting people in danger of dying in order to get the corpses buried. Also, how are the corpses going to be easily moved to landing areas at that altitude? People simply don’t have the strength to spare.
The helicopter that (allegedly) landed on the summit of Everest was so stripped down and on the ragged edge of operability that it would have been useless in an emergency situation. Right now, 24,000’ is about the highest a rescue chopper can operate, and that was very iffy.
There have been some controversies, but they are fairly rare. For the most part it’s a self-correcting process. There are a lot more controversies in speed climbing records, but that’s because records are easier to fake.
I believe the record has been homologated, so it’s safe to accept that the landing was accomplished.
Right - but we’re not talking about a rescue, merely removing bodies. And this would clearly be done from the south col (26,200’) not the summit - and in ideal weather.
There’s also the point that rescues have been done by climbers - in some cases from high on the mountain.
So, while it would be impractical, risky and expensive, it isn’t accurate to say there’s no way to retrieve the bodies
That’s true. But I still don’t think, even with perfect weather, that a chopper body retrieval is practical. The rescues up there were done by several people, and a somewhat cooperative patient. Dead weight is different then a person who can assist somewhat in their own removal. Still, if people felt it was important enough a retrieval could be attempted and would be successful to some degree.
But why remove the bodies? The traditional way to deal with bodies in the high mountains is to drop them in a crevasse and commit them to the mountain. I don’t think many climbers would want others to risk their lives to retrieve their bodies.
That’s a wonderful quote, Telemark. I hadn’t seen that one before.
OK, the problem is that a helicopter can only generate so much lift, and the higher you go the less it generates. The 24,000’ rescue (this was in 1996 season, correct? The one in Into Thin Air?)was done with a stripped down helicopter and had to carry the men one at a time to a lower altitude. Once an injured man was loaded it didn’t even properly take off - it sort of scooted to the edge of a cliff, dropped off, and sort of fell until it reached air thick enough to really start flying properly. It was very risky, and if the chopper had crashed or malfunctioned the pilot would have died within hours due to the effects of altitude as he was not acclimatized to that extreme altitude.
Even if the helicopter+pilot was able to struggle up that additional 2000 feet, it would not be able to carry out the weight of a body from that height. From 24,000 feet it couldn’t maintain altitude with a second person aboard but at least it was controllable - barely.
Now, arguably, the risk is worthwhile to save a life - but for a dead body? How can you justify the risk in that case?
Someone mentioned that the climbing of Everest has now become just one big ego trip for someone who has the money. (About $50,000 I think). Yes, some climbers will just walk by a dying climber, even if they are on an ascent. You could at least see the point in not rescuing someone if you are on a descent because a great deal of your energy has been depleted. I remember there was an SDMB thread about this a little over a year ago.
This incident does get mentioned in this article: A man taller than Everest - The Economic Times
On a lighter note, it has also been mentioned about proving you made it to the top of a mountain. Here is an interesting story of the first successful assault on Mt McKinley (now called Denali) which was done by rank amateurs:
I remember reading about that in high school and I’m glad I was able to find a cite.
I don’t think you can, which no doubt has a lot to do with why those bodies have not been retrieved.
Nowadays, with GPS, perhaps, but not with traditional altimeters. Those have to be calibrated depending on ambient pressure, so could easily be a thousand or more feet out.
I’m glad someone mentioned the case of Frederick Cook and “Fake Peak”. I thoroughly recommend reading this hefty PDF article which proves Cook never made it anywhere near the summit of McKinley - it’s really fascinating stuff.
Yes, that is a fascinating analysis of Cook’s photos - and even Dennis Rawlins’s commentary at the end is rather restrained by his usual Dio frothing-at-the-mouth standards.
There’s a quicker summary of the case against Cook in one of the chapters in Great Exploration Hoaxes (1982; Modern Library, 2001) by David Roberts. The one other strictly mountaineering chapter in the book is on Cesare Maestri. Though some of the other cases - like the one on Peary - closely parallel the sort of issues involved in those. Overall, an enjoyable, readable survey of the subject over the centuries. (And, FWIW, the series editor who selected it for reprinting in the Modern Library exploration series was Jon Krakauer.)
On a semi-related note, how do we know that Hillary was the first to climb Everest ? Isn’t it at least possible that the Sherpas at some point in the past have regularly climbed it, and the memory has just been forgotten ? Or even, on a more cynical note, that they were regularly climbing it in the 1950’s and saw a tourist opportunity ?
This thought occured to me, btw, when I read about some of the Everest records Sherpas currently hold, one of them has climbed it in just over 8 hours IIRC. They seem to have a definite talent for getting up that thing.
The only way the memory could be forgotten is if the story were never told by those who did it - which sounds mighty unlikely.
A conspiracy of silence involving a substantial number of people? Sounds even less likely.
No, they have an actual physiological advantage. No other group of people on Earth have as great a tolerance for high altitude, and there are some minor but real physical differences between them and the rest of us.
That said, they still die on the mountain, and they’re still affected by lack of oxygen, just not quite as badly.
I think some natives of the Andes could be rivals. From this link:
Yes, they are arguably 2nd best but people in the Andes can suffer from a sort of chronic altitude sickness not seen in Tibetans and apparently do not have quite as many adaptations as the Tibetans.
Unfortunately, I don’t have at hand the book where I learned this from, otherwise I could be much more specific and detailed. I’ll look for it and post it if I can find it.
This is Ponster’s missis. williambaskerville I understand the Sherpas and other Nepalese believe(d) that mountain summits are the abode of the gods and that standing on them is an act of desecration. This would explain the reluctance to ascend when there was no financial incentive.
Another problem with helicopter body retrieval is that the bodies are not on the tippy-top peak of Everest. Landing on the peak means you are not surrounded by anything – picking up a body on the slope means you are BESIDE the largest rock in the world (so to speak). If you’re on the lee side, the wind currents will be horrendous as the swirls around the mountain. If you’re on the windward side, you’ll be pushed into the wall of stone.
It’s very, very dangerous. You go first, Indy.
Sailboat