knoback wrote:I don't know, I've seen smart, well educated people pumping on a person's chest an hour after that person went into cardiac arrest. Under extreme pressure, people don't always behave rationally, especially when they are faced with a no-win situation.

Also, Simon might have contemplated telling a BS story about how Simpson fell. He did cut the rope, right? That adds to the pressure in this situation. I'm not a climber so this is a true question, but didn't Simon explain that he could not make an attempt to get the rope through the belay plates because his hands were cold and his position too precarious?

I have to imagine there are some embellishments with regard to detail. He was writing a book after all.

I think it all comes down to what we want to believe. Everyone enjoys a good story, the more incredible the more legendary it becomes. If Simpson is a good writer then it's irrelevant if the story is 100% true or not, most people will identify with the human condition he is describing. I still think it's good to have a skeptical approach to anything we read, especially if it has commercial purposes.

I'll give him one thing, if his leg was that bashed up it's amazing he survived, recovered, and kept climbing. In Bolivia at least, what Peru must have been like 20 years go, there are no evacuation/rescue services. It must have been quite the ordeal to get him out of there, anyone who's had a bad accident just grimaces at the suffering this would involve.

Andes6000 wrote:I think it all comes down to what we want to believe. Everyone enjoys a good story, the more incredible the more legendary it becomes.

Silvio1973 wrote:Simon does not check where exactly Simon is after the fall in the crevasse. Now I am a very stupid person but I would have made an anchor (may be the day after) to secure the body to a rope for future recovery.

That was one thing one of my partners was getting at one of the other days when I had a talk about this. Well I remember in the movie he walked around the crevasse and yelled out for Joe which as expect no response because he could not be heard. Now remember what I said about them running out of snow anchors, people seem to take that as a minor detail but I find it quite important in the cutting the rope part and Simon looking around. Plus I'll bet Simon wasn't quite in his right mind of thinking. Perhaps the biggest flaw on Simon's part was not look around enough, but I'm not going to give him grief for that.

As for recovering the body, I suppose Simon had no interest in that. He was still a bit worried for his own life, he still had to travel the whole glacier unroped and get out of there before things got nasty. If I'm not mistaken I think he had a bit of frost bite as well.

I wish I could also say like Silvio and Buzz that I've been to the glacier, just to get a better frame of mind and reference to the location but as it is, I see no holes in the
story nor do I have any issues with how the story was told.

After doing the absolute unthinkable, can anyone actually expect Joe to still perform and think reasonably & logically? Grief can be so bloody personal, it's like
trying to explain to someone what love is who's never experienced it. It's nigh of impossible to subjectify grief other than to give it an Oxford twist for labeling sake.
As Josh & knoback already said, how do you think you'd respond mitigating a glacier unroped without protection under perfect health? I can't even begin to imagine doing it under-nourished, dehydrated, afraid, with a destroyed conscience, etc.
So in that sense, you need to cut Joe some slack. You can't say he should have responded this way or that because it doesn't vie with how you would have handled it.

If the story/movie also seems over-sensationalized, well, the only thing to blame there is recollection and the human tendency to do so. I'm sure some parts probably were...I can live with that. Regardless of how it sounds, it does make for an enveloping and grossly intriguing read. If someone's experience is going to be sold to the masses, it kinda has to, within reason. I'm positive some parts were underated as well. I'd be keen to learn more of the technical aspects after the incident with both Simon and Joe. But in the grand scheme of what happened, they're trivial matters. But I certainly don't preclude there being 'holes' just because they were downplayed.

The whole situation hangs on his mental state, recollection, ability to control mental fabrication and of course, story-telling.
I can't fault you with doubting parts of the story (for some people, faith is a hard sell by any means) but most of us, I think, involved in this sport for long enough have a good, developed bullshit-meter and no one I've ever run across has cried bullshit...
(plus, Joe's climbing resume should erase some of that doubt, the fact that it hasn't for you tells me you're not considering it fully).
Anyway, I believe the guy, story and everything else connected to it.
I just hope they're still good friends and haven't let the opinions of the global climbing community come between them.

I honestly still can't believe you're not trolling - ? If Simon & Joe's story were even half true, it would still be an incredible yarn and - although i'm sure it sucked on an epic scale at the time for both of those guys - extremely impressive climb; their huge, incredibly technical route has only been repeated once. Every 'hole' in their story pointed out isn't a hole at all.

I do, however, fully support your skepticism for skepticism's sake - I wish we had much more of it in the world. But....if you ever run into Joe, given the famous personality of his younger days, i'd run like a mother in the opposite direction

Silvio1973 wrote: Now I am a very stupid person

That much is obvious.

Again,
I think you should read my post before getting in such comments.

I did not say the story is false and indeed this is not what I think. But I genuinely believe some aspects (namely timings and situations) have been exaggerated to make the whole thing more epic. This does not remove anything to Joe's exceptional hability to get out of the mess.

But the story as it has been written does sound akward to me.
I am sorry if my sketpitcism does bother you.

Yet Silvio, you might consider reading the responses to you before continuing with your same mantra. No one said that your skepticism is bothersome. The utter lack of context for why and what purpose you raise your questions on the other hand...

Silvio1973 wrote:I was there in 2007 along with a climber, Michael Ybarra, that you might know. We met on Summitpost and climbed in the Mont Blanc in 2006 and in Peru in 2007 for about one month, including around Siula Grande.

I don't believe you.

I am withholding judgment until Jon Krakauer self publishes his own version of Touching the Void. I imagine it will be called Touching The Void Of Lies or something similarly distinctly non-clever.

Oh boy, what will Jon publish next?

hey Silvio1973, My friend is Joe Simpsons nephew, maybe if I got his number you could call him for a interview and find out first hand. Although I doubt the interview would go very well...

ExcitableBoy wrote:I am withholding judgment until Jon Krakauer self publishes his own version of Touching the Void. I imagine it will be called Touching The Void Of Lies or something similarly distinctly non-clever.

Into the Void, perhaps?

More like Inot the Void of Lies But really I still believe Joe's story. And has my full support.