OK are we dealing with a politically correct euphemism here? Does "big" mean he was FAT? Or does "big" mean he was 6'8" 265 lbs?
It is a shame, but they KNEW the risk going up.
I just have to wonder, in this day and age, if the REAL reason they didn't attempt a rescue was because of the condition of his arms and legs. Perhaps they played God and decided that his "quality of life" wouldn't be "worth it" considering he would probably be a quadruple amputee if he survived.
People need to stop struggling with the concept that you can get yourself into a situation where others are physically incapable of getting you out. I'm not sure why this is so hard for personal responsibility hawks on this board to understand.
They couldn't rescue him. End of story.
Unfortunately people die in the Himalaya, even at lesser altitudes and on more navigable terrain than the top of the 3rd Hilary Step.
Having been up to the Everest region, at a certain level of altitude and acclimatization every step becomes a fight and a struggle, and the paramount chores are (a) breathing and (b) putting one foot in front of the other. Guides - they struggle too - bear the additional burden of worrying about and assisting their clients.
And that's the bottom line here: the guides who are being accused had to make hard decisions about the survival of their clients versus the survival of a climber who was in near-death state.
By helping the stricken climber, they would also be paying much less attention to their own clients (at altitude, thinking is very sequential and it's a struggle to think clearly and carefully). It's pretty obvious to me that they put their clients first, which was the right thing to do (even if the clients didn't like it or understand it).
Note to self:
Next time I see someone flipped over in a vehicle in a ditch, struggling to get out--conclude that's what they get since they knew the risks of driving.
Or when someone is drowning, conclude they knew the risks of swimming before they got in the water.
It took them a month to come up with this excuse. You'd think it would have been the first thing they said.
Inglis told Television New Zealand last month that members of his party found Sharp close to death, tried to give him oxygen and sent out a radio distress call before continuing to the summit. Inglis said that when they radioed Brice at base camp he had advised them to carry on with the summit bid without attempting a rescue.
What happened to the people the dead guy was climbing with? Do people actually try and climb Everest alone?
The ghoulish thing to me is that all of those bodies are just sitting up there forever, preserved by the cold, and serve only as landmarks. This bothers me, and it's wrong in multiple ways.
This would meant that Mt. Everest would have the world's longest staircase and tallest elevator which would be pretty cool.
The thought of climbers matter-of-factly navigating their courses and using the exposed and still-clothed corpses of long dead anonymous climbers as reference points is more than a bit grisly.
Reminds me of that great 70s book, "101 Uses for a Dead Cat." 101 Uses for a Dead Mountain Climber.
Wow, this thread is a blast from the past.
Apropos of something, Sir Edmund Hillary will be (or would have been ) 100 on July 20 of this year. He was alive when this thread was started.
Apropos of nothing, the OP was an original Seinfeld ping list member.
So, have the other climbers started splitting up his gear?