Unfortunately it seems as if many summit claims nowadays are false.

One wonders, how many of the first ascents of eight-thousanders who would stand up to the scrutiny of today? Can someone with some historical insight share some data on summitphotos, circumstances etc. of these first ascents?

As much as I would love Buhl for instance to have climbed NP, I dont see his summit photo as much of a proof other than that he was pretty high up. Or?

Regards -

/BB

Where's your summit photo, lol?

DMT

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Where's your summit photo, lol?

DMT

Thanks for bringing much needed light on this subject.

Have I broken any conduct of behaviour? I apologize then as you clearly can see I am a newbie here.

/BB

Welcome newbie.
You seem to like Pakistan.
Ever been to South America? I've heard there's a lot of nice peaks and doubtable ascents there too. They can't even decide which mountain really is the highest. Another trouble with climbing, when you want to be sure who's done what when.

BainthaBrakk wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Where's your summit photo, lol?

DMT

Thanks for bringing much needed light on this subject.

Have I broken any conduct of behaviour? I apologize then as you clearly can see I am a newbie here.

/BB

I can't bring any light to your chosen subject, sorry. How about these guys?



Some say its 'hubris' to claim any first at all!


And no, no code was broken.

Cheers
DMT

BainthaBrakk wrote:Unfortunately it seems as if many summit claims nowadays are false.

One wonders, how many of the first ascents of eight-thousanders who would stand up to the scrutiny of today? Can someone with some historical insight share some data on summitphotos, circumstances etc. of these first ascents?

As much as I would love Buhl for instance to have climbed NP, I dont see his summit photo as much of a proof other than that he was pretty high up. Or?

Regards -

/BB

Why pick on Buhl? There's no pnoto of Sir Edmund Hillary on the summit of Everest! Only one of Tenzing Norgay.

who took it?

It's all about the spray.

Buz Groshong wrote:
Why pick on Buhl? There's no pnoto of Sir Edmund Hillary on the summit of Everest! Only one of Tenzing Norgay.

Nah I'm not picking on Buhl. In fact I really admire him for his style of climbing and perseverance. I could have picked on someone a little less likeable eg. Herzog as it seems as he has not been entirely honest in his account of the French Annapurna expedition.

I just thought it would be interesting to analyze the first ascents in the same way as is done today. I was a bit inspired by EW's analysis of Stangl's "summit" photo.

Some more examples anyone?

Vitaliy M wrote:Who cares..it is personal. If you did it you should be as happy as the 1st ascent party, if you didn't do it and lied about it you yourself will not be satisfied of the achievement. Let's not look at what others are doing/have done, concentrate on yourself and your plans.

As far as I can tell everybody cares. Some people think you can't count climbs with oxygen and some people want a pure alpine-style approach etc. etc. But thats a whole nother subject.

I am interested in the history of alpinism and thats why I brought the subject up. Much like the moon landing, the climbing of the Himalayan giants (apart from the actual achievement) had large political consequences as well. So it's easy to see that people had even more to gain from faking an ascent than they have today.

I wish (economical) geopolitics were a compulsory subject in school. As general history.
(Not that joke they call history nowadays in school. )

A FA had political weight.
And it ain't about TV-programs either...




Yes, I AM old enough to have decent schooling.

Its an enduring topic to be sure.

My take - using Cesare Maestri, Tony Egger and Cerro Torre as perhaps the best example:

or Hell, use Everest, Mallory and Irving,

My take is that the tales and legends associated with the Sport of Kings should reflect some of the madness of those who pursue it. A sport as crazy and as pointless as climbing deserves controversy, legend, dispute and mystery.

I really emphasize the mystery part. I counsel... don't be so quick to drive a wooden stake in the Mystery Vampire's heart, as you may discover you just killed the very thing you value most about climbing.

If you knew, I mean knew, you could climb anything, any time, anywhere... would climbing still hold an appeal to you? Or, may I suggest, are your personal mysteries (can I do it? WILL I do it?) perhaps THE most important aspect of the sport?

I think mystery, innuendo, and even outright lies - all have their places in the tales (and they are all tales, don't forget that) of the global tribes of climbers. These tales breathe life into a past we can never visit. Why do we need to be so quick to judge, to shatter mystery? Is the modern search for the One Truth worth killing Climbing's Past?

At the time and since then I have voiced the opinion that Mallory and Irving were best left in peace and their mystery should have been allowed to continue. I think our sport was better for having the doubt, then it is now.

I still can't bring myself to judge Maestri either, at least not in the manner of my peers and colleagues here in Cali.

I know I am not with the mainstream on this.... but I say don't be so quick to charge 'liar' or to snatch the 'title' (sheesh!) of First, on someone else. Let a little mystery endure... its good for the soul.

DMT

As a dedicated SummitPoster, there isn't a font size big enough for me to post how much I don't care about first ascents, 8000 meter peaks or Everest climbs. In fact, I care so little about such things I will prove my apathy by starting another three threads about how I don't care!

"The punishment of a geographical ignorance is inevitably war. "

There's quite a lot to read on the subject. And there's quite a lot of conflicts involved.
Sir George Everest, Surveyor General of India from 1830 to 1843, was British, at the time of the empire's peak. That's not a coincidence.

This is a quote from an article about the Kashmir conflict, just to give an idea, even if it is just a small part:

"It is difficult to find precise maps of the Kashmir area, they are held by the major states of the armies for obvious strategic reasons. It is still the case in all the massives of the Himalayas. It is curios to note that cartography can be used as a propaganda media, which makes it very political. It is enough to consult several maps of the Indian sub continent to notice that at what point the borders of the 3 countries in Kashmir are changing. Recently, to please the 3 opponents, the World Bank “disadvised” its cartographic Service not to produce maps of the Indian peninsula which could be too precise and show the Kashmir area. Another example, the official altitude of K2 of 8611m was questioned in 1976 by a Pakistani expedition which recalculated its altitude up to 8760m. Another expedition, American this time, recalculated its altitude with the help of a satellite to 8858m, i.i. higher than Everest. For the highest mountain top not to be in Nepal any more (a country politivcally dominated by India) but in Pakistan has obvious political repercussions (the altitude of K2 was later recalculated by Italians and was closer to that of origin). Recently, India opened for expeditions, the powerful tops of the eastern Karakorum, even tough there are violent arguments about this. Expeditions must obligatorily be composed of the Indian army. To conquer the tops, and to make false altitudes in order to represent political borders without definition, are sometimes necessary excercises and part of a means to obtain political goals. The war that the 3 opponents delivered in Kashmir is also part of this manipulation and we may suggest that the territory is also part of a psychological war. "

redneck...
have you ever heard of not clicking on threads?