First intelligent reply in the whole thread. Thank you!
[From a veteran of the 1972 and 1976 American Dhualagiri expeditions]
Posted on 05/23/2006 8:42:02 AM PDT by Paddlefish
I recall seeing a show about the "death zone" on Everest, but for 40 climbers to walk over the fallen climber is really just cold (pardon the pun).
I don't think bodies are ever removed from Everest. They remain there as it is too difficult to get them out IIRC.
Your point would have more validity if they were actually on the way down, but they were going up.
First intelligent reply in the whole thread. Thank you!
[From a veteran of the 1972 and 1976 American Dhualagiri expeditions]
This is done with some regularity from what I've heard. A guy wrote a book on some busted expedition and Everest is a high altitude grave yard.
He couldn't be saved. Staying with the body would have jeopardized more people.
You do realize they ran across this guy at the height of a pressurized airliner, right?
Their defense is they couldnt save him. Well there something that is so cold hearted. Who leaves a man to die alone regardles if they could save him. How that must have been felt to that guy dying and seeing people pass. Yuck
Perchance, they, too, will be 'passed' by one day on that mountain, left alone to die because of the selfishness of another....
"He couldn't be saved"
So sayeth the self absobed Mountain climber who happened to have paid $35,000 to reach the summit to justify writing a book about his on greatness.
I take his word on that as much as I would take Bill Clinton's. Apparently someone helped him off the mountain so he could have his legs amputated, but he wouldn't pass the courtesy of an attempt to another human being. Poor excuse for a person.
These guys don't belong in the company of real men.
It would be interesting for those 40 climbers to explain their vacation decision to a group of vets from
Afghanistan.
Damn, fella! I'd hate to be in a combat with you behind enemy lines and lose a leg or sumpin! Because it didn't appear he would live is a good enough excuse? There's a higher power that makes judgement on these things, but, just damn!
We only have the word of the "guy with no legs".
We don't KNOW the condition of the man we just assume the claims of the documentary maker is true.
He had a simply non-choice. TRY and save the life of the man by going down to a lower level OR continue with the ego trip. This was a non-starter.
Now I hope the bad PR crucifies his book and documentary sales.
The first rule of saving a drowning man is that you don't risk your own life to attempt his rescue.
The story of the good samaratan immediately crossed my mind...
Good one, but you're not thinking about reality. They don't call it the "Death Zone" for nothing.
If we're at combat at 28,000 feet and you get shot in the leg...you're dead. Otherwise, I'll do what I can to save you.
Next time you run across a documentary or see a book on an Everest expedition...watch it or read it.
The only problem with your analogy is that the only risk to them was the risk of not making the summit.
They were in the Death zone, but they were on the way up. They spent a lot of time passing the dying man on the way up, and then on the way down.
You should rewrite your analogy, you don't abandon your vacation scheduled swim to save a dying man. That would fit this situation better.
I don't think, if I were fit enough to be on that mountain in the first place, that I would have left him there. But, I can't say absolutely because I was not. The one thing that I can say is that the triumph of scaling the mountain was far overshadowed by the the shame of what they stepped over on the way to the top....
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.