|
tenn_dawg
Mar 23, 2004, 6:09 AM
Post #26 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
You know. I'm going to say that unless you have been on a mountain in serious danger and were put into a similar sitution, you really have no grounds to even speculate on the decision made by Yates.
There's a big diference between climbing crags, and climbing mountains. I think that this lost on the new climbing generation.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 23, 2004, 6:31 PM
Post #27 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
HIKERken, as a highly experienced mountaineer I am speaking from my direct experiences in the mountains. I have rescued my partner from crevaces even though it could have meant my own life. Rather than just cutting the rope and leaving him to die I rappelled off of horribly sketchy snow stakes and got him out of there. The option of cutting the rope breaks the bond between climbing partners so that one partner now has the power to end the others life. When you rope-up in the big mountains you are signing a contract with your partner to do all that you can to save his life. Never assume.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 23, 2004, 6:50 PM
Post #28 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: You know. I'm going to say that unless you have been on a mountain in serious danger and were put into a similar sitution, you really have no grounds to even speculate on the decision made by Yates.
When those two chose to tell their story to the world, they gave every one of us ample grounds to discuss their decision ad infinitum. Nothing else really needs to be said about that, but as usual I can resist elaboration.
To say we can't talk about or question their decisions simply because we have not put ourselves in a similar situation means we can't learn from the mistakes of others. As humans we have learned to project, to pretend. It allows us to model our possible reactions and this process is critical component to human thinking. We do it because that is what it is to be aware... conscious of one's own death and taking steps to circumvent it.
I admire the honesty and the courage of their writing. But I sometimes notice people putting these two climbers on a pedestal, that perhaps through suffering and deprivation they are now above it all.
They were just a couple of blokes who got WAY in over their heads, fucked up bad and then one partner made the decision to survive at the expense of the other. That both of them made it out is a great story, but it is by no means an example of how climbers should conduct themselves in the mountains.
Ask yourselves this... would you climb a hard, committing and dangerous mountaineering route with Joe Simpson?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
hikerken
Mar 24, 2004, 7:42 AM
Post #29 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2003
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: HIKERken, as a highly experienced mountaineer I am speaking from my direct experiences in the mountains. I have rescued my partner from crevaces even though it could have meant my own life. Rather than just cutting the rope and leaving him to die I rappelled off of horribly sketchy snow stakes and got him out of there. The option of cutting the rope breaks the bond between climbing partners so that one partner now has the power to end the others life. When you rope-up in the big mountains you are signing a contract with your partner to do all that you can to save his life. Never assume.
Never Assume? Ok. Lets say, then, that your assumption that one should NEVER cut the rope is wrong.
In fact, in this case, it WAS wrong. In THIS case, cutting the rope, with near certainty, would have resulted in both climbers dying. Your approach would have killed them. Had we known about it, we would all have spent years screaming at Yates for being such an idiot for, essentially, killing himself.
So, instead of your ridiculous rescue scenarios, give us your way of getting out of their situation: Not the use of non-existant extra ropes....not the use of non-existant stakes, not calling down the mother ship.....either tell us how, or say that your best way is a two person death dive. It sounds like you neither read the book or saw the movie.
It is now on YOU to say, not what they should not have done, but with your vast mountaineering experience, what they should have done, instead.
|
|
|
|
|
erdeneruc
Mar 24, 2004, 8:44 AM
Post #30 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 56
|
In reply to: It is now on YOU to say, not what they should not have done, but with your vast mountaineering experience, what they should have done, instead.
I will bite: see from another thread...
Erden.
|
|
|
|
|
skiorclimb
Mar 24, 2004, 11:24 AM
Post #31 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 169
|
I would say, and I don't have alot of mountinering expirience, that there is a lesson to be learned from this story. One thing that could have made a big difference in their situation is if Joe had tied prusiks before needing them. Mountineering 101 has tought us all that prusiks should be tied and ready to go if traveling over crevased glaciers. It dosn't seem to be a great leap to say that they should be tied and ready to go if you are lowering on unformiliure terain. I would not have thought of it myself, but after haveing the benefit of knowing their story I hope I would think about that now. If Joe had been able to tie the prusiks, he tried and failled, their might have been a very different outcome.
Don't bother telling me about my spelling, I am aware.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 4:25 PM
Post #32 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
HIKERken, you obviously have never passed a knot while on a free hanging rappel so it would be pointless for me to try to explain it to you. LOOK IT UP. All Simon had to do was to pass the knot and lower Joe as far as he could, if Joe was not touching the glacier by then Simon would slip down the slope untill Joe touched down. Once Joe was down he would untie the rope and Simon would make a double rope rappel or even a single rope rappel and leave the rope fixed fixed. This is how they should have gotten out of their situation. As a side note, I have read the book and seen the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 4:29 PM
Post #33 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
"In THIS case, cutting the rope, with near certainty, would have resulted in both climbers dying." -HIKERken
uh, okay KEN, and you are trying to convince us they made the right decision?
|
|
|
|
|
hikerken
Mar 24, 2004, 4:45 PM
Post #34 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2003
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: HIKERken, you obviously have never passed a knot while on a free hanging rappel so it would be pointless for me to try to explain it to you. LOOK IT UP. All Simon had to do was to pass the knot and lower Joe as far as he could, if Joe was not touching the glacier by then Simon would slip down the slope untill Joe touched down. Once Joe was down he would untie the rope and Simon would make a double rope rappel or even a single rope rappel and leave the rope fixed fixed. This is how they should have gotten out of their situation. As a side note, I have read the book and seen the movie.
An interesting concept. Passing the knot. That would seem to indicate that Simon Yates should have tied their third rope to the end of the two ropes he was using to lower Joe.
Only problem is, if you had read the book, or seen the movie, *and paid attention*, instead of making *assumptions*, you would have realized that they only had TWO ropes, both being used to lower Joe, and thus, there was nothing to tie, creating a knot, to be passed. Nice try, but giving solutions that involve gear they didn't have, doesn't really sound reasonable.
Indeed, they were using two ropes, knoted together, and had to pass the knot on each lowering....they had already done that on this pitch, Yates had a few feet of rope left, and that was it.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. BUT if you take the position that Yates should have "done something else", then it is on YOU to say what that something was. If you cannot come up with something specific, then this is a learning experience for you.
Skiorclimb, that is an interesting thought about the prussiks. Whether he could have climbed them with his shattered leg, I question, but this guy sure did a lot of things I'd not thought possible. And the prussiks was sure what he thought of trying, once he was hanging. Good thought
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 5:40 PM
Post #35 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
So both ropes were payed out. Joe had about 80 ft. to the ground. If Simon had 80 ft. to the edge of the ice cliff then he could have slipped down the slope until Joe was on the ground and then rappelled.
'nuf said.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Mar 24, 2004, 6:09 PM
Post #36 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: I'm willing to bet they'd both be dead today if Simon had not cut the rope. They both had another chance at life as a result...
I agree, aside from a couple of other things, this is what I walked away feeling...and, as I remember, there were 2 ropes, Joe hanging in the air with no way of communicating, and Simon, with no good purchase on the ever deepening snow, about to slide over the edge; There was absolutely no other way out of the situation and have at least one survive.
All in all, a great movie! Looking foward to it coming out on DVD.
|
|
|
|
|
sancho
Mar 24, 2004, 6:09 PM
Post #37 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 70
|
Grayhghost, either you are a troll or an idiot. What ever the case may be, both are annoying!
Really, your comprehension level is quite dismal!
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 6:24 PM
Post #38 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
why do you say that SANCHO?
you are too quick to agree with the decisions the Simon made because both of them got out of it alive. This would be a very different discusion if Joe ended up dying (maybe found dead on his way to crawling out towards the road)
If Simon explained what he did to end the life of his partner you would be tearing into him.
|
|
|
|
|
sancho
Mar 24, 2004, 6:35 PM
Post #39 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 70
|
Because, Grayhghost, you clearly do not understand what happened.
"Pass the knot" you say? Excuse me, genius, but Simon had no knot to pass. He was not tied in to anything. Simon's anchor consisted of a depression dug in the steep, loose, snowy slope and that is the best he could do, given their situation...
Read the book, watch the movie, but pay attention this time.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 24, 2004, 6:37 PM
Post #40 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: This would be a very different discusion if Joe ended up dying
Well, there wouldn't BE a discussion if he died. There wouldn't be a book or a movie. Just a climber with a huge monkey on his back.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
skiorclimb
Mar 24, 2004, 7:48 PM
Post #41 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 169
|
Acorrding to the book there was a knot to pass. Wheather it could have been done without having an appropriate anchor I seriously would doubt.
I looked down at the slack rope being fed through the belay plate. Twenty feet below I spotted the knot coming steadily twoards me. I began swearing, trying to urge Joe to touch down on to something solid. At ten feet I stopped lowering. The Pressure on the rope hadn't changed.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 8:09 PM
Post #42 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
thank you SKIORCLIMB for referencing that. It just cements my feelings that HIKERken and SANCHO are in this more to just argue and throw mud than to have a discussion. I CLEARLY UNDERDERSTAND the situation and offer a logical resolution in which both partners share the responsibility of their actions.
SANCHO and HIKERken need to re-read the book and get their facts straight before they go shooting of their mouths.
Humans are not infalable, we can question their judgment.
Dingus, many expeditions have been "audited" by the American Alpine Club after members of the expedition died under less than transparent circumstances. So there is a discussion when partners do not come back alive.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Mar 24, 2004, 8:51 PM
Post #43 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: cutting the rope should not even be an option. simon should have lowered/slipped down the slope as far as he could and gotten joe to the ground. he should have tried to save his partner as much as he could. cutting the rope was a decision made out of fear for his own life.
Massive troll. 2 deaths is not better than 1 death. What Simon did was eminently justifiable given the situation, and it astounds me that anyone would contest this. What's more, Simon's decision ended up netting 0 deaths -- both he and Joe survived. If he had continued to lower they might well have both died of kidney failure (dehydration) or frostbite during the descent.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 24, 2004, 8:52 PM
Post #44 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Dingus, many expeditions have been "audited" by the American Alpine Club after members of the expedition died under less than transparent circumstances. So there is a discussion when partners do not come back alive.
Dude
I was just having some fun. The reason WE (you, I, the internet, the man in the moon) know anything at all about what happened to this British team is the survivor wrote a popular and riveting account about it. In that account we became privy to the intimate details of what happened from their perspectives. So we discuss and debate their decisions.
This is an old discussion because of the book. Its a new discussion because of the movie. And none of us would be having it if Simpson had died. No Simpson, no book.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
ajoys
Mar 24, 2004, 9:05 PM
Post #45 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2002
Posts: 45
|
In reply to: Acorrding to the book there was a knot to pass. Wheather it could have been done without having an appropriate anchor I seriously would doubt. I looked down at the slack rope being fed through the belay plate. Twenty feet below I spotted the knot coming steadily twoards me. I began swearing, trying to urge Joe to touch down on to something solid. At ten feet I stopped lowering. The Pressure on the rope hadn't changed.
I haven't read the book or seen the movie but he cut the rope when he had an entire rope length to go if he would of only passed the knot?
If this is what happened then why didn't he just pass the knot and continue lowering?
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 9:20 PM
Post #46 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
a new perspective yields the correct answer!
|
|
|
|
|
skiorclimb
Mar 24, 2004, 10:41 PM
Post #48 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 169
|
He didn't pass the knot for the same reason Joe droped his prusik cord, they were both freezing to death. Without an anchor, or even a good stance, And with fingers like wood their was nothing that he could have done. Knowing how to do something and actualy doing it with frozen fingers, while sitting on a colapsing death perch are totally diferent.
|
|
|
|
|
sglat
Mar 24, 2004, 11:14 PM
Post #49 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 80
|
That's one of those things that none of us can understand; primarily because none of us were there. It's kinda like...well, no one else can understand what it was like in regard to the emotions and everything else. I'm not saying that it's not documented. It's that we cant grasp it. I'm not trying to shoot down your post or anything. things like that happen to the best.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 24, 2004, 11:36 PM
Post #50 of 59
(6769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: That's one of those things that none of us can understand; primarily because none of us were there. It's kinda like...well, no one else can understand what it was like in regard to the emotions and everything else. I'm not saying that it's not documented. It's that we cant grasp it. I'm not trying to shoot down your post or anything. things like that happen to the best.
I like the turn of this discussion. I'm not so interested in good/bad analysis. As you say, what happened happened.
But to say we can't understand it, that we can't grasp it, because we weren't there and didn't experience it, nulifies 5000 plus years of written language.
We can experience things vicariously through words. That is their purpose after all.
Math is the language of logic. Art is the language of emotion. Words are one of the tools of art. Combined they constitute our ability to convey thoughts, emotions and experiences.
"I saw big deer 3 days hike north from here!" For the amount of space taken up by those words, that is an incredible amount of information. Experience, emotion and logic, all in once sentence. Part of the excitement, a facimille yes, but a part of it nonetheless, is transferred from the reporter to the listener. And the listener reacts both logically and emotionally.
Joe Simpson wrote an incredibly powerful account of his survival. If you have read the book you do have a great deal of information at your disposal; experience, emotion and logic.
It's art when you come right down to it. He painted an incredibly vivid picture with photos and words and hundreds of years from now people will be able to read that book and understand in large part what happened.
That's not to say, my friend, what went unsaid. He painted the picture he thought he wanted us to see. Who knows what dark thoughts have haunted these two all these years later...
Revel in our language! A big part of the brain is dedicated to it. It's a great book.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
