I know John, but have not climbed with him or his son. They live here in Spokane. They are also rabid leftists. Which is very funny, because when he climbed Nanda Devi back in the 70's he was considered too conservative! Don't know Kim.
Posted on 05/23/2006 8:42:02 AM PDT by Paddlefish
Mark Inglis, an amputee who conquered Mount Everest on artificial legs last week, yesterday defended his party's decision to carry on to the summit despite coming across a dying climber. As his team climbed through the "death zone," the area above 26,000 feet where the body begins to shut down, they passed David Sharp, 34, a stricken British climber who later died. His body remained on the mountain.
Mr. Inglis, 47, a New Zealander, said: "At 28,000 feet it's hard to stay alive yourself. He was in a very poor condition, near death. We talked about [what to do for him] for quite a lot at the time and it was a very hard decision. "About 40 people passed him that day, and no one else helped him apart from our expedition. Our Sherpas (guides) gave him oxygen. He wasn't a member of our expedition, he was a member of another, far less professional one." Mr. Sharp was among eight persons who have died on Everest this year, including another member of his group, a Brazilian. Dewa Sherpa, a manager at Asian Trekking, the Katmandu company that outfitted Mr. Sharp before his climb, said he had not taken enough oxygen and had no Sherpa guide.
*********
The company charges $6,000 to provide services as far as base camp -- far less than the $35,000 or more cost of guided trips to the summit. Other mountaineers have criticized the commercialism of climbing the 29,035-foot peak, with guides charging huge sums to climbers with minimal experience.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
someone could have just stayed with him while he died......even if there were no heroics, they could have stayed with him....
um....did you miss the part about them going UP the mountain?.....if their hiking party was in dire straits, then why proceed UP the mountain?....
It may be true that it wasn't a problem for the man, but his family might've found some comfort in knowing an attempt was made or that someone was with him. They'll be living with that for the rest of their lives.
are you a Roskelly?.....he's from Gonzaga territory.....and Kim Momb as well, IIRC....
Jesus had it right, indeed, Chaplain.
If I were a preacher, this story would be the centerpiece of my message this Sunday. I may mention it to my preacher for that reason. It's about as clear a choice as a person could make.
Even if you did no more than stay with him until he died, then come back down, your victory would be great. But going to top? Disgusting. Shameful. That's a mark on one's soul, IMO - a deep and ugly one.
He also suffered injuries to the stumps of his amputated legs caused by the repeated impacts of climbing on prosthetic limbs. His legs were removed below the knee because of frostbite on an expedition in 1982.
They're not the brightest bulbs on the tree either.
That was my impression. That they were on their way up and COULDN'T BE BOTHERED!!
Selfish SOB's!!!!
I woulda tried to get him down. I might have failed, maybe I would die myself, but I WOULD HAVE TRIED!!
my impression of "into thin air" was that one of the big problems is that rich people who should not have been on the mountain, were there because of the money.....
Other details make this story even more heart chilling.
Apparently, the paraplegic who passed the man by had once been a stranded climber who HAD BEEN rescued....that's how he lost his legs. See #280
Thank you for the correction. MacDonald conquered Mt. Kilimanjaro. LoL, I was way off.
I know John, but have not climbed with him or his son. They live here in Spokane. They are also rabid leftists. Which is very funny, because when he climbed Nanda Devi back in the 70's he was considered too conservative! Don't know Kim.
I have a short page on John on my vanity website:
John Roskelley on Spokane & Climbers
See post 211. The link has a story that indicates that those who are too far gone will not be rescued. This man was discovered frozen. There's no way to warm him. There's no way to keep him from further freezing on the way down. There's little Ox up there and he had to be given Ox just to wake him up. He was already passed out again when they walked away.
They had assessed his condition and concluded that they never would have got him back. They were right. He was dead when they passed on their way down. That was hours later, not the next day, or close to it. Everyone that goes up there knows the risks and their abilities and limitations. This isn't as if the man was rescuable. He wasn't even conscious, or capable of staying conscious.
i suppose i have a few points
1. it takes a different type of mentality to do this climb
2. i am sure it is incredibly tough on body and mind and spirit
3. the dying man is felt by all as personal, a kinda 'what if that was me..'. i suspect climbers dont think this way or they feel they cant afford to think that way
this however doesnt justify their actions. climber or no, you are part of the human race.
i would be far more likely to buy his book, IF he realised, this was a chance to save someone, even the remotest of possibilities of saving this man meant not reaching the summit. that to me would be a triumph of the human spirit over ego, the mountain, finance, even your own life. there are so many books on everest and to be honest, the few i have read are all the same in one way or another. he had a chance here to feel compassion. you may say, campassion doesnt exist in moutain climbing, well i reply to you...change that. he had a chance to help another person, to resolve, that this man would not die alone. he had a chance to make his passing easier, he baulked at that chance, for personal ambition, for personal triumph. he will face this choice at his own end, whether it happens on a mountain or in his bed...he had a chance to save a life and he chose to forego it to reach a mountain top and satisfy his own lust....how sad, how desperately desperately sad. and at some stage in his life he will regret this decision as the worst mistake of his life. also, the concept, i conquered everest with no legs, is it really such a triumph when 40 people were before you that same DAY versus this mans peace or perhaps, just perhaps, he survives?
he feels like he conquered everest, he can use this as discussion over dinner, using his no legs and fingers as some proud warwound...the question i would ask to every person who meets him..is this the man you would want to support you in any situation? deep down there is something repugnant about a man who feels he has done his duty..by delivering an o2 bottle to a dying man...and then continuing on his way up a mountain. as for the other 40, i would like them named also. at least he admitted this, what about the other teams who ascended and who just stepped over him. what about the dying mans own 'team'.
all types of reasoning have been given, he was unconcious, we dont have the equipment, we would die ourselves. speaking as an everyday person, not a climber, i would reply..in every situation, people can find excuses for not helping, but they are that, just excuses. the image that jumped into my mind when reading this was the 2 marines in falluja who had been killed on a road during the assault. the image of another marine trying, under gunfire, to pull his fellow marine, off the road, and getting hit himself in the process, and the story of one of the most amazing individuals that shows the power of people over situations and this is the story of sgtmaj Kasal.
read about it here:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/02/promoted_recomm.html
now compare and contrast the 2 situations and ask yourself this...who would you want beside you when you are in trouble?
is there truly any difference, personally i dont think so...situations are different, but the necessary responses should have been the same....
anyway, thats just my tuppence worth...
Go read post #167.
The man with no legs was called a "a self-absorbed, nihlistic A-hole!" for not carrying another man down the tallest mountain on earth.
Um... did you miss the part about this man being in the death zone? Or that the climbers are able to carry only enough oxygen for themselves? Or that they did not have enough room in their packs for their mountain rescue gear?
And they are not "hikers" as you call them. They are mountain climbing the highest mountain in the world. They are in a zone where they are dying every minute they stay there.
If you just climbed an ice wall with a 14,000 drop on one side and a 9000 foot drop on the other side, you have a 60 pound pack on your back. Your body is crying for oxygen. You haven't had a complete night's sleep in 72 hours, you have to force yourself to eat and drink because you have lost your appetite. You want to lie down and sleep but don't because you know you will never wake up. Your fingers hardly move and you wonder if you will lose a couple of them to frostbite when and if you get down. You are wondering if you brought enough oxygen, but think, "God how could I have carried one more cannister?" You barely have enough strength for one step in front to the other. Your head is pounding. You are out of breath. Sometimes your vision is blurry.
Then you come upon a climber sitting along the trail. What do you do after you barely made it up that ice wall and were wondering how you were going to get down it on your way home.
Now you are supposed to lower a 250 pound human ice block down that same cliff?
I would dare to say that anyone who would pay $40,000 and risk life and limb and risk leaving widows and orphans behind to scale a stupid mountain that has been conquered and conquerd hundreds of times for nothing more than the glory of bragging that you did it is, by definition, a self absorbed nihilistic a-hole." Couple that with being a member of a group of 40 people who passed a dying man on the way up and that removes any doubt.
Mr. Ingliss is not to be faulted for not personally attempting to rescue his fellow "self absorbed nihilistic a-hole", he is to be faulted for being a member of a so called "professional" group of climbers who thought more of scaling the mountain than saving another human being.
To be quite honest I have absolutely no respect for any married man or any man with dependent children who attempts to climb Mt. Everest or any other dangerous peak. There is nothing to be accomplished other than self-glory or death. That, by definition, is self absorbed nihilism. You earn the "a-hole" title when you leave people to die along the trail.
Apparently, Sir Edmund Hillary, who made the climb before it was a "holiday" for the idle rich, disagrees with your climbing conclusions and expertise. I'll have to choose his opinion.
You can fault people for their motives for going on the climb, but you must also fault the climber himself.
Instead of the $35,000 package with guides and sherpas to carry some of his load, he risked his life by going on the cheap, spending just $8000.
Only a self absorbed nihilistic a-hole would expect 40 others, who spent the money to do it right, to risk their lives to save his tight wad ass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.