Talk:George Mallory

Climbing to the summit and returning safely down

These comments by Mallory's son and Hillary echoes what President Kennedy considered a first Moon landing:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

-JFK before the US Congress, May 25, 1961, launching the Apollo program.

Many Apollo veterans have stated repeatedly that the Moon missions were indeed a two-part mission: from the Earth to the Moon and then from the Moon to the Earth. Any different outcome would have been considered by Houston, the nation and the rest of the world a total failure.

Not an exact analogy. It's as hard to get back from moon to earth as to get out from earth to moon, whereas it's much harder climbing up a mountain than down. Also, mountaineering is do-it-yourself whereas astronauts are simply pilots of a rocket that others have built - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.251.164 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Aldo L (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a contentious subject, highly influenced by claimants and their relationship to Sir Edmund Hillary. Genrally speaking, "first ascents" have not required the climber to descend safely. But, recently the left-wing literati have decreed that only a safe "green" descent validates a "first ascent." Bullshit. First means first. Tholzel (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. Mallory never made it to the top. Its really quite simple - Irvine wasn't capable of climbing the second step. As they never seperated, they could never have made it past the second step. It doesn't matter how good a climber Mallory was, he could only go as far a Irvine could go. Any climbing team on a rope is only as good as the weakest climber. So don't focus on Mallory. The focus can only be on Irvine. It is almost beyond belief that the so called experts refuse to consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.196.210 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

First "real" ascent, or just to the summit?

This section has been a pebble in my shoe for some time. Perhaps it's just me, and I've been biting my tongue for a while, but it seems to me that in an article that by its nature dances on the fringe of undue speculation, it is unencyclopedic (and condescending) to speculate as to what all of the speculation might mean if the speculation were to be (just speculating) found true. Are there any sources for this or should it just be pruned? (and a source for John Mallory's opinion, it seems to me, would not fix the problem, as he has no particular say in what public opinion might be in the indefinite future). Steveozone (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. But the facts are that Mallory is really only known for his brave possible ascent of Everest. Otherwise there would not be much to write about him. Thus, much of what fascinates people about him is exactly the mystery of what happened to him and Irvine. Once that is finally setttled (as I suspect it will be this year or next) the mystery will be solved, and--barring a successful summit--cause interest in the two to settle down to a footnote in history.Tholzel (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that some mountaineers, who should know better, say it is not an ascent if you do not get back. That reminds me of the Pierre Boulle short story. Japan gets the first man on the Moon, precisely becaus they had no intention of bringing him back.... The first manned flight ended in a crash. So an ascent is an ascent. Hillary had a vested interest in claiming that an ascent was not an ascent, particularly as his own claim was vulnerable - because of the doubts about whether it was him or Norgay who got there first.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

George Mallory was the first to reach the summit of Everest but died from lack of oxygen climbing back down. Sir Edmond Hillary was the first to summit Everest and safely return to the base of the mountain. He is the first to complete the climb and descent . The proof Mallory made the summit is the picture and British flag Mallory was going to place on the summit were not found with his body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:A500:2A1:64B6:FC88:9AF7:8719 (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I talked with Reinhold Messner at the American Alpine Club annual dinner regarding the chances of M & I having either one of them reached the top. While both he and I initially thought it possible, now that more and more information about the difficulties of the North Ridge route, we are now in full agreement that it was "absolutely impossible."69.121.226.166 (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC) (Tom Holzel)

Übermensch++ good yah?

Wernher von Braun style bio-metrical data list (here) would be helpful, to be refined and 'known' to be fairly accurate, then put into the main article as text.

All I seem to read about Mallory are negatives about his abilities. Being 37, was he at full male peak stamina (isn't this about the age most alphas peak)? 86.25.203.35 (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Camera Obscure

I really think there should be a separated sub-heading to this article, dedicated to the cameras alone, as these could prove that he got there first (and could provide, in a historical sense, the strangest and most valued footage / photograph(s) ever taken).

I read somewhere, a long time ago, maybe in a Britannica publication, that Mallory was handed a camera to carry on the summit climb, but would have handed it to Irvine (the Engineer) had they reached the top. Is this true? There are also these questions I would like to have explained fully:

If pictures were taken under perfect summit conditions, would they be likely to have featured reference points within them?

What sort of condition would the film stock be in now, if discovered near to Mallory's fall place, undamaged by impact or visible radiation?

Could film-less cameras have been left (or destroyed) at the summit, and is it more likely, if left, they just blew away?

What photographic equipment was likely to have been used (full listing of all items, not just 'summit' items)?

There were as many as three possible cameras among them:

Two Vest Pocket Kodaks (VPK) and--sensationally--one possible wind-up cine camera loaned to Irvine by the expedition photographer Capt. John Noel. (source "The Irvine Diaries"). That no camera was found on Mallory's body, or near-by, does not mean he had no camera. It could have separated from him anywhere along his descent. Tholzel (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Are these cameras likely to be clad in gold leaf?

Hopefully they had the http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Kodak_vest_pocket_autographic Special with Cooke (special filter coated) optics.

No they did not. They had the standard VPK, NOT the Model B as reported by Nova/PBS.Tholzel (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So this camera type differed in that it had no stupid write-on-and-damage-my-pictures-look-at-my-frame-number door / window, and was possibly designed (hopefully by John Browning) for use in the horrors of the trenches?

"Have brought Noel's pocket cinema up (to the North col), but not used it a yet." Irvine Diaries , Herbert Carr, 1979, p 111. Tholzel (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this a Bell & Howell Filmo 70 (16mm format), do you think? ... I've just seem what this thing can do, with standard optics, through a digital emulator, no good, well if reference points are what you're after [I can't see them taking anything larger than this, and I can't see then taking it in its factory supplied case either, but I can see them taking it; this makes a lot of sense, from a promotional point-of-view].

I have written confirmation back from Cooke Optics that they supplied one lens for sure to Noel, but they need to do more research to find out if it was for a cine camera, big or small, or not. [This is for a very big cine, this can be dismissed for sure.] As for the Kodak cameras, they haven't dug anything up yet, so these may well have Kodak lenses. Interesting, Cooke can confirm, they have hand written documents from Taylor (Cooke's 'CEO'), that he was in personal communication with Eastman, over how Kodak could improve their optics. Now, having done some research on this, it turns out that Kodak's lenses during this period of interest, made a 'massive' technological leap, so, taking Kodak 'special filter coated' lenses, was probably the right thing to do, if that's what they did.

[Any TOP SECRET information regarding a Scientific grade one-use-only device, fitted with (non-patented) superior-quality retrofocus multi-coated optics, with a beam-splitter, and an auto shutter and (65mm) auto transport system, all within a small case. Possible candidates for further research are Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company / its London subsidiaries - THIS IS OF UP MOST IMPORTANCE - ANY INFORMATION HERE PLEASE - This device, may have two buttons to two mechanisms; one for a '360', and the other for a 'rising arms' rapid sequence.]

This is a known still film type, that is likely to have been taken on the summit climb: Kodak Autographic (A127) roll film.

[Proof here - could Agfa or Ilford have made films in this format? Are Kodak the sole maker, could different paper-backing, or even film format(s) have been used?]

This is a know hazard, that 127 film's substrate carrier (or almost any off-the-shelf film made in 1923-4) can suffer, if not handled and stored properly: Nitrocellulose (See 'Nitrocellulose film' sub-heading.)

Kodak 127 film developing instructions: http://www.velocitypress.com/mallory_irvine.shtml#A127_Film

[Links to ALL cine film processing instructions, here please.]

This is standard 35mm film. Tholzel (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What 16mm / 35mm stock was taken, British, American, or German?

[Any information on Kodak's 'new' (1923-4) technology reversal / print films, here please.]

Legality & Copyright issues, who has claim to 'summit' photographic equipment and materials?

[Barrister-at-law will be needed, once all data here is resolved, to determine what parties own what, due to the Scientific nature of the expedition, possible and most likely candidate for this will be the Royal Geographic Society, however, the Royal Air Force, or private individuals (subjects), or estates, may have whole (or in part) claim to material.]

Best case summit scenarios (so far) based on what we know and what is most probable:

1. Mallory arrives with a small shoulder strapped case and a pocketed loose camera, Irvine follows with a larger shoulder strapped case and a pocketed loose camera, photographs taken and photograph left, both small cameras are pocketed by Irvine, as well as both cases carried, both leave. Mallory dies in fall. Irvine (falls, but) finds shelter 'unhurt' (with all equipment intact), then dies.

2. ?

Scientific American article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mount-everest-mystery

---

(I've stripped things out, no Vandalism meant, and I've edited slightly here and there, so it all reads better, with no damage to content, hopefully.) I'm sorry if you think these technical issues (possibly about film development?) aren't worthy of being in the main article, but I do understand that they aren't historical. However, having them here (or a link from here to another article) is important, as I'm trying to make sure that I can get through to some expert technical people, so that future possible historical material, if it's found, can be preserved to its best. I'm trying to save historical pictures that haven't been found or developed yet, from being handled, stored, transported, and processed incorrectly, if they are found. I would like to have the chance to edit what I have written, streamlined down to a paragraph or so, but I keep getting involved in petty issues and side tracked, which isn't what I'm trying to achieve here. All I want is to be left alone, and leave a small section here (at the bottom), so others can read. Then I will leave, and let it be. Thank you.

Kodak's advice, is fine, if you had to process the film at base camp, and you only had one shot at it, but something this important should be dealt with by a pool of experts, not just from Kodak, but also from Agfa-Gevaert, FujiFilm, and Ilford Photo, and not at base camp, but in Switzerland.

Kodak film scientist (now all retired) agree that the developing technique described at Velocitypress were designed to be used at Base Camp. But the realities are that it is just a souped up version of standard technique and standard chemicals. Further research by other rescue film experts, including a deep discussion with Kodak scientists reveal that far more sophisticated processes are required.69.121.226.166 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Tom Holzel

Get serious please, claims that Eastman Kodak is not qualified to make a judgement on how to develop its own film--after a corporate effort was undertaken to do exactly that for this particular film? Tholzel (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Very serious. If Mallory was a North American, the USA wouldn't just bring in its own experts on this issue. They would also bring in someone like Richard Feynman, heard of him, have you? He had to deal with the aftermath of the Challenger disaster, due to Corporate incompetence. All I'm trying to do, is avoid a disaster that hasn't happened yet, but probably will, read his last book (it even has pictures), one of the most interesting (and worrying) books I have read.

Besides, how do you know it was all Eastman stock, Ilford are looking like the more likely supplier of the real 'baby'. I imagine they only took Kodak cameras because they were designed by an American genius, WW1 test approved, and battle tested. If it wasn't for that, they would of, more likely than not, have taken German cameras (120 6x9 ones), made by the same company that supplied Mr Armstrong and Company with their optics.

Tholzel, you can have your subject back now, I'll be leaving here shortly, hope you like the Historical links that I've left here (one can't understand the present, without understanding the past). I hope that you might appreciate that there is a lot more to this, than is currently known. I don't know why I was 'sent' here to do this. It felt like being directed, than otherwise ('something' got hold of me). I hope that if people do die for this, they die trying, trying to 'expose' one of the greatest mysteries of the previous century. I personally feel that they did it (I would listen to all the 'negatives', that are aired over this, with extreme indifference, and look at what is known, the axe, Mallory’s position). Seeing a 360 panoramic, shot by Irvine, would be amazing, and well worth framing, the whole World over. I wish you good luck with this quest.

PS: The Royal Navy will want to take Irvine by helicopter I imagine (he was an Oarsman), and the Royal Air Force will want the film.

Interesting to think that Irvine may have been a mobile camera shop, all that way up there. (Thanks to George Eastman and Horace Darwin, maybe.)

My final (subjective) view on this whole affair is this, advocating scenario one: God, Mother Nature, the Grand Mathematical System, whatever one may affix, took them then, and took them then for a reason ... so that we may assist now (which is what we can do now), without any further real risk; we owe it to them both.

PS: This whole thing, is very, very, strange, don't you agree?

Tholzel, you know where Irvine is, don't you?

Mr Holzel, unless you have been taken as well, please would you at least acknowledge that you are still with us? Dbd-wiki (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Recap, a la Wikipedia principles: Mallory and Irvine were said, contemporaneously with their disappearance, to have possibly been carrying a standard Kodak VPK, with standard 35mm film, said to have been loaned to Mallory by Noel before the trip to high camp (prior to the summit trip), but to date, no trace of any camera or film has been found, on Mallory, or in the camp. Larger cameras may have been available to the expedition, but it is improbable that they would have been carried on the summit push, and there are no reliable sources indicating that such a camera (or indeed any camera at all) was in fact carried by M&I on the final summit push. The film of that era was by all accounts fragile, but it is possible that images might yet survive on camera exposed film, if M&I had the VPK camera, attempted to take any pictures, and the film survived possible camera damage, and conditions have been suitable (as is possible, even or especially, high on Everest) until ultimate discovery of the camera. Sources indicate the camera should preferably be left intact as found, protected from any further shock, and protected from light or radiation exposure, and processing should obviously be handled by the most knowledgeable photography technicians available (and presumably those with a strong background in the history of standard Kodak equipment, supplies, and methods, assuming that the found camera is in fact a VPK). Kodak has been consulted and gave a considered opinion regarding this scenario: [[1]]. All of this has some sources, and should be (and is) mentioned here (together with any additional facts about Mallory and Irvine that are reported by reliable sources.

Beyond that, whether or not other film/cameras/makes/models/events/conditions occurred, all is left to grace and fate if any camera and film (Kodak, wind-up cine, 3-D IMAX, or otherwise) is ever found, and until that time speculation without reliable information is fascinating and important, but is not encyclopedic, at least according to Wikipedia. I'm personally all for trying to provide climbers and Kodak and other technicians with some good ideas if something happens, but for good or bad, it's pretty clear that WP isn't the vehicle for that effort. Steveozone (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I think that there's a recognized Mallory historian who might have a good chance at locating "young Irvine." Steveozone (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Double up

Much of what is in this article either is, or should be, in the 1924 British Mount Everest Expedition article. By all means, have a brief summary of the expedition, but if we're going to be adding more details, I think it should be to the other article - this page should be mostly 'biography'. - 121.208.93.203 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Problem of Sandy Irvine Climbing the Second Step

Mallory 'may' have been able to climb the second step. However that is not the issue that is critical to answering the question as to whether Mallory and Irvine summited. The most important question is - could Sandy Irvine have climbed the second step? We now know that the two climbers were roped up when Mallory had his fatal fall. This means they never seperated during their summit attempt. So the only possible way they summited was for Irvine to climb the second step. Given Sandy Irvine's climbing experience and given what is known about the climbing severity of the second step it would have been impossible for him to climb the second step. Quite simply this why it is possible to say with certainty, Mallory and Irvine did not summit. If Sandy Irvine did not climb the second step they never summited. It really is as simple as that. It would be interesting to hear other comments on this.

Top-roped, one can climb things that would be impossible while leading. --Paul (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine with todays climbing gear at sea level. But in 1924 they didn't even have a harness. The rope was simply tied around the waist of the climber and gave very doubtful protection. There was no 'give' in the ropes they used and quite often a person taking a fall when roped was badly injured or even killed by the impact of the rope when it held. It would have been a massive risk for Irvine to even attempt the second step at that altitude. But even with a top rope Sandy Irvine still wasn't skilled or experienced enough to climb the second step. It would have required Mallory to literally haul him up - an impossibility at 27,000 feet.

Time to archive?

Any objections to turning loose MiszaBot on this page? We have not just very old threads but very old WP:FORUM-type threads that people are responding to years after the fact. Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections and nobody else here seems to have any, either. Turn it loose? :) Freedom to share (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ambivalent, but 55:45 in favour of archiving. Fiddle Faddle 10:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. (I think.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a smidgen of tidying, see the history. Either my notes were faulty or you miskeyed. But not by much in either case! Fiddle Faddle 07:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

For those who wonder about the redlink of today's date in the history of this page and think the archive run failed, that is not the case the archive run worked, but to an imperfectly named file. No conversations have been lost. No talk page restoration is required. I have moved that file to the correct name and deleted the redirect to it via CSD. The Archive box at the head of this page now finds the correct archive file. Fiddle Faddle 14:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reaching the summit

This whole section is quite complex and a bit obtuse and goes off on a bit of its own tangent as well. Would there be any opposition to splitting the section into its own article? This would make this article more of a biography of Mallory and the like rather than speculation on whether the 1924 expedition reached the summit, and the breakaway article could have far more non-Mallory info as well (such as more details about Irvine) and be a good extension of the article on the 1924 Everest expedition. What do you think? Freedom to share (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What about 1924 British Mount Everest expedition? If there's too much detail here, maybe some of it could be moved over there. Rivertorch (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a better idea :) To be fair though, I feel like much of that section could be significantly abridged, since it does seem to contain quite a bit of original research. Any opinions on that? Freedom to share (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the 1924 Everest expedition is what Mallory is most noted for, it deserves a fair amount of coverage in this article. I'd say the section could be tightened up quite a bit, but I'd be wary of omitting too much detail. Original research is always fair game for the delete button, of course, although most of what is there probably meets WP:V without too much difficulty. Synthesis or unsourced speculation can always be nuked. Rivertorch (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I perfectly agree that the 1924 expedition deserves a fair bit of mention, but I'm not sure how relevant the whole debate over whether or not he reached the summit is. Lots of it seems like original research (or haphazardly collected quotes) and, if it's relevant and has encyclopedic value, it would probably deserve its own article or a merging with the 1924 expedition page. After all, it was not just Mallory's attempt at a summit and not just Mallory's failure to return from it alive. Freedom to share (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

True. I haven't looked at Irvine's article in a long time, but I suppose there must be some redundancy between the two. The "did they or didn't they" debate is certainly a topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage, considering how much attention it has received over the years, as long as it is handled carefully (i.e., avoiding primary sources and the latest quote du jour from such and such famous climber). Does it deserve its own article? I don't know. I suppose it might prove beyond the proper scope of the expedition article, but I'm not so sure. Rivertorch (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Been doing some editing and major cleaning up here, removed a bit of original research and will probably add more citations soon. Still think that much of this could be moved to the 1924 article though, but don't feel like I should unilaterally make that decision :) The problem with the "did they or didn't they" debate is that many places in this article seem to be the result of Wikipedians doing original research and trying to debate it with uncited claims rather than giving an objective view of an already existing debate among mountaineers. Freedom to share (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Mallory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130303001517/http://velocitypress.com:80/Mallory__Irvine.html to http://www.velocitypress.com/Mallory__Irvine.html#A127_Film

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Climb without oxygen

Everest has been climbed without oxygen. Therefore the statement that "Thus, even if Mallory had taken Irvine's oxygen, he would not have had enough oxygen to reach the summit" would not be technically correct. With oxygen they could have been turning the oxygen on and off, thus increasing the time each tank lasted. This could have meant a slower climb to the Second Step, and allowed enough oxygen to be available for the final summiting.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And the mile was run in under four minutes--eventually. The climbers of the day, with the possible exception of Noel Odell, were just not physically fit enough to summit without oxygen. No one in a grueling climb turns his oxygen on and off. If you slow the climb down this way, it buys you nothing, as the day doesn't slow down, and climbing w/o oxygen is so exhausting, you will just not be able to continue with oxygen or not. Furthermore, this wass Mallory's second assault on that expedition--a very difficult feat to pull off. 69.121.226.166 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Tom Holzel