Mallory did not reach the top of Everest in 3 attempts. He died trying to find his way on his third attempt.
There is no evidence one way or another that Mallory did, or did not, reach the top of Everest. What
is clear is that he died on the
descent not the ascent. For years, one objection to any suggestion that Mallory could have reached the summit was the difficulty of the Second Step, especially with the primitive gear of those days. But climbers since, without artificial aids, have managed the Second Step, so while Jochem Hemmleb points out that isn't evidence that Mallory could have done it, it does indicate that it was not impossible, as many previously maintained.
Most of those who have investigated all the evidence are cautious in their conclusions, opining that while Mallory's reaching the summit cannot be ruled out, it remains unlikely, given the many difficulties plus the lateness of the day as they were making their summit push.
The three Mallory and Irvine Research Expeditions of 1999, 2001 and 2004, uncovered a great deal of new evidence and clues, though nothing that solves the mystery as yet.
For those interested, these sites are informative:
Jake Norton, who participated in the Mallory and Irvine Research Expeditions, has a fascinating, detailed and very knowledgeable 3-part blog post on what he believes most likely happened to Mallory and Irvine on that fateful day.
http://blog.mountainworldproductions.com/2010/05/what-really-happened-to-george-mallory-andrew-irvine.html(follow links to parts 2 and 3)
Here's an interesting interview with Jochen Hemmleb, whose vast historical and topographical knowledge of the M & I saga is extensive:
http://www.everest1953.co.uk/jochen-hemmlebHere's an observation he makes that some here may find resonates with their own thoughts:
Another lesson I gained from the 1924 story, which may come as a surprise to some, is that I have come to feel that for me the inspirational figure of this expedition is no longer Mallory, but Edward Norton. In a sense, Mallory was the first “Everest junkie”. He needed the mountain, because he realized what an ascent could mean for his life, for his support of his family, for his career as a writer and lecturer, etc. You can call that “visionary”, for sure. But he made himself dependent on a public that could only see or understand success in terms of reaching the summit. To a certain degree, Mallory became a slave to his own ambition. Norton, on the contrary, approached the mountain differently. His son Hugh recently told me that his father regarded his Everest expeditions as an interesting “sideway” to his main occupation, that of a professional soldier. It amazes me that Norton, with this background, was not only fit enough to reach over 28,000 ft. without oxygen, but remained clear-headed enough to recognize his limits in time and return safely. Norton’s approach to climbing Everest speaks a lot about true independence and freedom, not only in mountaineering.
It may be that in the near future, Sandy Irvine's body may be found, and/or oxygen bottles used by M&I near the summit, which would be concrete evidence of their reaching the top. Until then all we have is informed speculation.
reply
share