|
vegastradguy
Apr 15, 2005, 5:48 PM
Post #2 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
this might be the most ignorant post i've ever seen. i don't even know where to begin... :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Apr 15, 2005, 5:53 PM
Post #3 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 15, 2005, 6:02 PM
Post #4 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
Sub-zero, what are you trying to get at here?
Please refrain from posting until you can come up with something, anything, worthwhile.
Holy crappola, your posts are scary, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
chanceboarder
Apr 15, 2005, 6:05 PM
Post #5 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348
|
that's it, someone take the computer away from this guy. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
cedk
Apr 15, 2005, 6:18 PM
Post #6 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
Is that Kevin Costner? I didn't know he made a climbing movie?
|
|
|
|
|
sub-zero
Deleted
Apr 15, 2005, 6:20 PM
Post #7 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Okay this post had nothing. I thought it was crazy how in about 50 years our climbing has changed. Makes me wonder if they even had climbing ropes and climbing shoes back then. There must have been a lot of accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
tenesmus
Apr 15, 2005, 6:27 PM
Post #8 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2004
Posts: 263
|
It's not from the 50's... those guys are just from Eastern Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
sub-zero
Deleted
Apr 15, 2005, 6:29 PM
Post #9 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Actually if you look at the site I got it from they are from the 50's. Check your info first.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Apr 15, 2005, 6:44 PM
Post #10 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
OK, I'll bite: Maybe a little context would help here. Who are these people? Where are they? What happened? What were they climbing? Exactly what is the date on the pic? Where can I get a hat like that?
|
|
|
|
|
sub-zero
Deleted
Apr 15, 2005, 6:49 PM
Post #11 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I don't know really much context on it. The guy injured is some guys father, that's all the site said that and it's from the 50's. I was just checking out some pics and that's what was there. The hat I don't know where you can get one. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
shorty
Apr 15, 2005, 6:55 PM
Post #12 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 1266
|
In reply to: That's why I'm careful when I climb.
Leave the train wreck sensationalizing to the tabloids and the 10 o'clock news. This forum is better used for valid discussions of accidents, their causes, and how to learn from unfortunate incidents.
In reply to: I thought it was crazy how in about 50 years our climbing has changed....There must have been a lot of accidents. |
|
|
|
|
chronicle
Apr 15, 2005, 7:05 PM
Post #13 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 664
|
I'm just glad there is a forum killfile. I can't take any more posts from this kid.
|
|
|
|
|
sub-zero
Deleted
Apr 15, 2005, 7:09 PM
Post #14 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
There's always a rusty nail somewhere. I just like to make things interesting and my bad if I'm highly entertained by people and their reactions. It's funny.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 15, 2005, 7:11 PM
Post #15 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I don't get the outrage here.
There was a top rated photo that repeatedly showed on the fp for a long period of time, a poor dude with his ankle bone sticking out of his foot. Where was your outrage then?
Context? Climbing accidents happen, no different than that top rated photo.
The outrage seems to be directed at sub-zero in particular, imo.
Later
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
taualum23
Apr 15, 2005, 7:12 PM
Post #16 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 2370
|
What website did you get this from?
The properties on the photo says it comes from /www.theparrots.net
Hmmm...that's where I get all my climbing info.
|
|
|
|
|
chanceboarder
Apr 15, 2005, 7:22 PM
Post #18 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348
|
In reply to: What website did you get this from? The properties on the photo says it comes from /www.theparrots.net Hmmm...that's where I get all my climbing info. |
|
|
|
|
jammer
Apr 15, 2005, 7:39 PM
Post #19 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2002
Posts: 3472
|
Like Dingus, I am having a hard time understanding what's up ... I haven't followed sub-zero at all, but I will say that the site that he got this from is about a girls school, or something like that ... a lot of soccer information on a certain team. why in hell would a climbing pic be there. I could not even find a link to the accidents.html page????? :?
|
|
|
|
|
anothertucsonclimber
Apr 15, 2005, 8:54 PM
Post #20 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2003
Posts: 149
|
Hey Sub-Zero, one question:
Do you have a tattoo of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot on your shoulder? Comon.....I bet you do!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Apr 15, 2005, 9:35 PM
Post #21 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
Dingus, I think you're just being a contrarian. Again. As for context, this may not even be a climbing accident for all we know. Granted, sub-zero, you've got our curiosity up; it's an interesting picture (tabloids often say "if it bleeds, it leads"). On my cubicle wall, I've got an interesting picture of a guy laying on the ground beneath a car dangling from a steel cable, but I don't post it because it's not relevant. So help us out here.
|
|
|
|
|
sub-zero
Deleted
Apr 18, 2005, 4:06 AM
Post #22 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I don't have any tattoos but if I did that probably would be one of them. I got the pic from looking on yahoo for climbing accidents. I was getting some for an english project.
|
|
|
|
|
phatcat
Apr 18, 2005, 4:21 AM
Post #23 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2004
Posts: 598
|
its hard for me to believe that the picture is from the '50's when color photography wasn't commercially practical or available until the 60's.
but if the internet said it, it must be true...
|
|
|
|
|
sub-zero
Deleted
Apr 18, 2005, 4:49 AM
Post #24 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
phatcat I didn't know that, hey you learn something new everyday. I just put whatever the website had. That's the internet for yah.
|
|
|
|
|
phatcat
Apr 18, 2005, 4:56 AM
Post #25 of 43
(8095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2004
Posts: 598
|
i don't mean to bust your chops, color photography was used as early as the '20's. that just seams like a damn nice picture for very early in commercial color photography.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 18, 2005, 5:55 AM
Post #26 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Dingus, I think you're just being a contrarian. Again.
I am deeply wounded. Deeply.
Gotta tell ya though, that compound fractured ankle pic really bothered me, down in the gizzard. Made my asshole pucker up like the end of a hotdog every time I saw it.
I don't recall reading any complaints about that one. I didn't complain because my issues with it were personal, had nothing to do with the dude or what have you. Its just, I broke my own ankle last year and by god it just bothers me to see that shot. Poor bastard.
To the color photographer dude... Jody Langford who used to have a ton of photos on this site before he was hazed out, posted many brilliant color photos from his dad's mountaineering days in the 50's in the Tetons. I was always amazed they 'climbed in color way back then.' You just get used to seeing b&w shots, it can come as a surprise the world was as vibrant in pre-photoshop days.
They just couldn't easily edit out ropes and dirt and tree branches and all those other things that 'ruin' a good fake photograph these days, lol.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
ammon
Apr 18, 2005, 8:25 AM
Post #27 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 27, 2004
Posts: 220
|
I'm WITH you Dingus!!
Classic!! Especially, the guy yawning above the victims and the other guy smoking a cig in the upper-right corner......
Looks like his leg might be broken. Sometimes its a hard day at the crags, huh?
Dingus, I also agree with most of your argument in the whole Photoshop thread (yes, I read the entire thing... nope, don't have too much time to join you guys in the discussions anymore). If it's NOT obvious.... clarify what you did.
Cheers-
|
|
|
|
|
jackhammer
Apr 18, 2005, 12:42 PM
Post #28 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 255
|
????
I give this post...4 question marks.
|
|
|
|
|
leinosaur
Apr 18, 2005, 4:08 PM
Post #29 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 690
|
Dang, that WOULD hurt!
I've got two ideas on how to mollify the grumps and turn this into a remotely "useful" post:
http://www.theparrots.net/...cident-with-Dad-.jpg
A. "Spot the injury" (game) -
I see:
1. Head injury (note the blood)
2. Leg injury (presumable a fracture)
3. Possible internal injuries - if he hitt the end of that static rope with just a bowline around the waist: OUCH! Of course, we don't know if he ever hit the end, how dynamic the belay was, or really anything.
B. Critique the first aid:
I'm booked for WFR training in June, so until then, I'll just ask questions:
1. How 'bout that splint? Looks like a sloppy wrap, but BOMBER stiffener there, eh? Just happened to have that on hand?
2. Head injury - yet untreated, or does the hat serve as an ersatz bandage?
Other than that I would merely point out that whatever sub-zero's history, at least his post had a picture. Those flaming him merely kept alive a thread they found offensive without adding much to the discussion. I guess they got TROLLED! They say you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but around here I'm not so sure.
IMHO the picture is more interesting than the panties-in-a-wad grumpiness: I like to look at old pictures in general, just to see the aged styles etc. and if they're climbing-related I say they're relevant. Beats another shoe thread, eh?
I'm gonna throw in bvb's old wool-knickers picture here, for good measure. Seems as apt a time as any . . .
It's old, I like it, so there!
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=11995
(spot the potential injury, anyone? critique the spotting? LOL!)
|
|
|
|
|
cfnubbler
Apr 18, 2005, 4:38 PM
Post #30 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: 2. Head injury - yet untreated, or does the hat serve as an ersatz bandage?
The blood on his face is inconsequential, if that's what you mean by "untreated". What treatment do you recommend for a true head injury in a backcountry environment, assuming for the moment that's what this is? It's intracranial pressure that kills you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it in a wilderness setting. Those folks need a hospital and an ER doc, and they need them RTFN.
Two things most W-EMTs and WFRs fear most in the backcountry-Serious abdominal and head trauma. They'll spend many hours discussing these topics in your WFR course (which is good), but in the end, the only treatment is PUHA- Pick em' up and haul ass.
But the reality is that the vast majority of folks with those sorts of injuries in a remote environment are not going to make it...
-Nubbler
|
|
|
|
|
fire-master
Deleted
Apr 18, 2005, 4:56 PM
Post #31 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
As a semi-informed individual on this topic (I have WFA, so I'm half the man leinosaur will be) I can say two things about the pic:
1) The splint looks like most of the splints we made in our WFA course. You tie all kinds of cloth straps and other softness around the leg and use something rigid (often a sleeping pad) to keep the leg stable. Just judging from what I see, it looks PRETTY good.
2) If there was indeed a head injury (it could just be blood spatters from another injury) it should be attended to in some way. A bandage to protect it of nothing else. True, you can't treat internal head trauma in the wilderness (unless you're an ancient Incan skull cutter), but you should treat the superficial wounds to prevent infection and hasten blood clotting. Also, if you have an injured patient, it does a lot to make them feel better if you give all their wouds at least some attention.
Now if I just saw a SOAPNOTE somewhere in the picture....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chauch
Apr 19, 2005, 3:37 AM
Post #34 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 26, 2005
Posts: 218
|
yea, and the guy to the left is tim robbins... :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Apr 19, 2005, 3:57 AM
Post #35 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
It's obviously a bunch of drunken Irishmen, not climbers at all, who came over to support their favorite football team "the fighting angry squacking Parrots", and then who ran smack dab into a bunch of irate elderly women who took offense to their drunkeness and swearing and promptly beat them over the head with their parrosols.
The rope was what was left of the rope off area next to the field as the Irishmen were pushed off of the stands by the old women. There is no climbing gear or even backpacks in the picture.
You are welcome for the explaination. And the splint would be perfectly fine for a compound fracture, I've done worse with less thank you.
Now we should be done discussing it.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
weasel
Apr 19, 2005, 5:06 AM
Post #36 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 136
|
The only input I have on this is that there's no way this is from the 50s. If someone can find ONE color photo that they can prove is from the 50s that has half this quality, I will be flabbergasted.
In fact, there aren't any 60s photos that are this good either.
Also, the people are dressed somewhat like the 80s - 90s. They don't have one piece of climbing-related gear. My guess is some poor buggar hiking and slipped where he shoulden't have.
Anyway, just my two cents.
P.S. It looks like a high-quality digital photo.
|
|
|
|
|
milk
Apr 19, 2005, 6:17 AM
Post #37 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 55
|
i dont know why you guys are whining, the average search engine is a completly viable source, as you can see from this picture of a "climbing accident" from the google image search
http://www.nostalgiaunltd.com/...iumqueenmaryC595.JPG
|
|
|
|
|
anykineclimb
Apr 19, 2005, 6:38 AM
Post #38 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 3593
|
Extra points for the Chuck Taylor's!
|
|
|
|
|
bigjonnyc
Apr 19, 2005, 12:41 PM
Post #40 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Posts: 369
|
I agree, this can't be the 50's, as there is only one person in the whole picture smoking.
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Apr 19, 2005, 1:36 PM
Post #41 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
what's the point of this post. yes, that would hurt. good one.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 19, 2005, 3:02 PM
Post #42 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Also, the people are dressed somewhat like the 80s - 90s.
There isn't a Nike to be seen in that shot. Button down pockets on the jackets. No goretex. And they are wearing Chucks. Chucks that have worn soles at that. A laid rope. Cotton pants.
I don't know dude, that doesn't look like the 80s or 90s to me. But whatever.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
leinosaur
Apr 19, 2005, 7:43 PM
Post #43 of 43
(7052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 690
|
google search "history of color photography"
http://www.photo.net/history/timeline
some relevant excerpts:
1936: development of Kodachrome, the first color multi-layered color film; development of Exakta, pioneering 35mm single-lens reflex (SLR) camera
World War II:
development of multi-layer color negative films
1963: first color instant film developed by Polaroid; Instamatic released by Kodak; first purpose-built underwater introduced, the Nikonos
and from further down the list:
http://histclo.hispeed.com/...oto/photo-colph.html
Color photographic processes were developed in the late 19th century, but black and white photography dominated for the first half of the 20th century. Commercial color photography appeared in the 1930s, but it was expensive and the dyes unstable. Some color negatives my father took in the 1940s had faded beyond use by the 1950s. Color snap shots did not become common until the 1960s. Kodak invented the Instamatic camera in 1963, and began the mass marketing of color film. Until then, virtually all photographs had been in black and white. In the early 1970s, sales of color film outstripped black and white and today it accounts for all but a tiny percentage of the film sold throughout the world.
So from the look of things, I'd say early-to-mid sixties? Easy to confuse early-British-invasion times with the fifties . . .
Thanks for the first aid critiques, I wasn't sure if we could squeeze something "of value" out of the flame-fest or not.
Interesting, though, how folks still want to have the last word: Hello, it's an internet forum!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
