Skip to comments.Lincoln Hall, mountaineer left on Everest, dies
Posted on 03/26/2012 10:54:55 AM PDT by GSWarrior
SYDNEY (AP) Mountaineer Lincoln Hall, who was rescued a day after being given up for dead near the summit of Everest in 2006, died Wednesday of cancer in Australia. He was 56.
Hall reached the peak of the world's highest mountain but became gravely ill from oxygen deprivation during the descent. His guides helped him initially then left to save their own lives.
American guide Daniel Mazur, his two clients and a Sherpa guide were just two hours from the 29,035-foot peak on the morning of May 26 when they came across Hall, who had been left alone a day earlier.
"I was shocked to see a guy without gloves, hat, oxygen bottles or sleeping bag at sunrise at 28,200 feet height, just sitting up there," Mazur told The Associated Press days after the rescue.
Mazur said Hall's first words to him were: "I imagine you are surprised to see me here."
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
True, the headline makes it sound like he died on Everest. Instead he died of mesothelioma, completely unrelated to his harrowing adventure.
Absolutely true. A lot of people think they would try to rescue others up there, but if they were up there, I am almost positive they could not, even if they wanted to, for the reasons you describe. Remind me, never to go mountain climbing.
Reminds me of my first trip there. My cousin had her then infant with her and she woke up very early that morning and woke me up too. So I decided to watch the sunrise. Dang near blinded my sleepy eyes when it peeked above the horizon.
I haven’t read Into Thin Air, but I have read several detailed discussions re: the other guide’s supposed misrepresentation. None of his disputed points changes one scintilla of the way Thin Air depicts him. He did the job of a climber, while Rob did the job of a guide.
Boukrev told his version of story in The Climb, but I have not read it.
And on the primary route they travel, there are already guide ropes and ladders intalled......
Well put. Semper Fidelis.
Everest is very dangerous, but it is not a particularly technical climb. Doesn’t require much skill, just conditioning and stamina.
That said, any mountain close to that height is extremely dangerous simply because of weather and altitude.
“Absolutely true. A lot of people think they would try to rescue others up there, but if they were up there, I am almost positive they could not, even if they wanted to, for the reasons you describe. Remind me, never to go mountain climbing.”
Perhaps this is a sufficient reminder?
“The case of Hannelore Schmatz is an infamous one. On October 2, 1979, after a successful summit, and for reasons unclear, she died of exhaustion 100 meters short of reaching Camp IV. For years, any climber attempting the southern route could see her body, sitting, leaning against her backpack with her eyes open and brown hair blowing in the wind. Despite being so exposed and so visible along the well-trodden climbing route, rescue operations are virtually suicidal in the Death Zone. A Nepalese police inspector and a Sherpa who tried to recover Hannelore’s body in 1984 both fell to their deaths. It was finally high winds that blew her remains over the edge and down the Kangshung face.”
*Clang* Start again!
That is the way I see it, too. Krakauer did meticulous research and interviewed everyone involved who would talk. He admits that oxygen deprivation makes it difficult to remember ever detail concisely. But he wrote the most factual acct he could, and nothing has turned up in the meantime to dispute any of his principle points. I read the other guide’s rebuttal, and there was nothing of substance in it. He did exactly what Krakauer said he did; in fact, his only issue is w the reasons he did things. I.e.: he asserts laudable motives for his actions, but doesn’t dispute the actions themselves.
................Instead he died of mesothelioma................
Well, no wonder he had an oxygen problem while climbing!
Maybe he should have called:
“Hi I’m Dave, and I have mesothelioma”, then called the hurt line so some ambulance chasers could earn another 1/3rd of his settlement!
Read The Climb, by Anatoli Bourkeev instead. Much better read and closer to the facts.
“I love reading about climbing expeditions.”
In my younger day I did, but now I just think about how utterly selfish the entire process is. A climber deprives his family and friends of his time and presence during the preparation for a climb of Everest/K2, and so many of these teams just don’t care that at least one of their party is pretty sure to die on each ascent. And for what? To say they climbed Everest? I was proud of this man who said, “I couldn’t live with myself if I passed him by”, as MULTIPLE other climbing groups do.
Here’s an Amazon review of the book you may find interesting. I certainly did:
“This review is from: The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest (Mass Market Paperback)
The debate that still rages over the relative credibility of the various books written about the 1996 Everest disaster is remarkable both for its intensity and its longevity. The fact that people are still arguing passionately about what happened nearly four years ago is kind of mind boggling. I’ve been following the debate from the sidelines ever since the summer of 1996, and I read both “The Climb” (TC) and “Into Thin Air” (ITA) as soon as they came out. Since then I’ve read almost all the other books about the tragedy as well. And recently I read the new expanded 1999 paperback editions of TC and ITA, each of which has been revised throughout, and each of which has a lengthy new postscript that answers charges made by the other book. If you have more than a passing interest in Everst 96, you will want to read both these new editions, even if, like me, you already read the first editions. The new dueling postscripts are mandatory reading if you want to have a better understanding of what happened. In my opinion, the truth lies somewhere betweeen the Krakauer account and the Boukreev/DeWalt account, although I think ITA is by far the better (and more believable) book. You, however, might feel differently. Read both new editions and decide for yourself.
All of the different Everest books offer slightly different versions of the same events. This probably shouldn’t surprise anybody, considering the effects of altitude and extreme stress on memory. I generally give Krakauer the benefit of the doubt over the other books, though, because he was the only author who took detailed notes while he was on the mountain (a widely respected reporter and mountaineer, he was sent to Everest specifically to document the 1996 climbing season). Krakauer was also the only one of the Everest authors who took the time to interview virtually all the major and minor players in the tragedy, so his book has a thoroughness that is lacking in the other Everest books. The other books, including TC, will be much easier to follow if you’ve read ITA first. ITA provides crucial background that’s missing from the other books, and seems carefully researched and relatively balanced in a way the other books do not.
Which is not to say that ITA isn’t flawed. Krakauer wrote it when he was still greatly troubled by the tragedy, and the book clearly shows his raw emotional state. This gave ITA much of its stunning literary power (it is incredibly riveting to read!) but it also probably skewed Krakauer’s objectivity. I think maybe he wrote more harshly about Sandy Hill Pittman and Boukreev than was necessary.
One thing that struck me is that ITA and TC are actually in agreement about most major points. ABout the only points where they diverge seriously is over the wisdom of guiding without oxygen, and whether or not Boukreev had permission from Fischer to descend ahead of his clients. On this latter point, Krakauer makes a pretty convincing argument that Boukreev didn’t have permission, but I think he was wrong not to give Boukreev the benefit of the doubt. I am prepared to take Boukreev’s word on this one, despite plausible evidence to the contrary. Ultimately it’s not really that improtant whether Boukreev asked permission or not before he went down. It probably wasn’t such a wise idea, with or without permission, but Boukreev later more than made up for it by saving the lvies of Pittman and Charlotte Fox. So I think Krakauer was wrong to make a bid deal about this.
But DeWalt makes an even bigger deal about this same issue, and thereby reveals himself to be an overly zealous advocate. TC barely even pretends to be balanced or even-handed. DeWalt writes in the style of a foaming-at-the-mouth defense attorney, less concerned with the truth than winning an acquittal for his client. He makes use of bombast and self-righteous indignation to appeal to his readers on an emotional level—the journalistic equivalent of “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!” DeWalt presents the facts very selectively, and occasionally twists them outright, in order to build the strongest case he possibly can, hoping to make Boukreev look infallible and Krakauer look like a liar. The problem is, it’s not a particularly believable strategy if you stop and consider everything logically, without emotion.
Boukreev is portrayed as a hero in both books (albeit an imperfect hero in ITA). Like other reviewers here, however, I thought DeWalt’s overstated advocacy in TC actually did more to hurt Boukreev than help him. Krakauer correctly points out that DeWalt was surprisingly careless with his research and fact checking. Plus, DeWalt doesn’t have much natural talent as a writer (to put it charitably), which also hurts Boukreev’s cause. I wholeheartedly agree with those other reviewers who wish Boukreev had chosen a more skilful and scrupulous author to tell his story for him. As I said, however, these are simply my opinions. I urge you to read both books for yourself and make up your own mind.”
I don’t remember the exact quote any longer, but your exchange reminds me of something attributed to Capt. Henry “Hammerin’ Hank” Elrod at Wake Island. With only 4 beat up F4F Wildcats to take on the Japanese Navy, the Wake Marines had no armor piercing bombs, only 100lb. high explosives. When his commanding officer informed Elrod that it would be impossible to sink warships with 100lb. bombs, Elrod responded something to the effect of “the impossible just takes a little longer”.
He then proceeded to target a Japanese Destroyer’s loaded depth charge rack and, with a 100 lb. bomb, achieved the impossible.
Yep, freeze dried corpse to go with one’s veggies.
You may already know about this webcam. Some mos ago it featured simply breathtaking views of Everest. Since then it’s been plagued w technical difficulties. It’s up and running today w pics of Mt. Nuptse. Still quite magnificent, but you wonder how long until the screen goes gray again:
I know about it, but I had forgotten about it. Thanks.