|
ZombieLenin posted:Actually my understanding is that Kodak scientists have studied the possibility of developing film from 1924 found on Everest and concluded it should be possible. That makes sense because they just developed negatives from Antarctica 100 years ago, taken during the Shackleton expedition. Here's one:  See them all here: http://www.nzaht.org/AHT/antarctic-photos/ I don't what dumbfuck decided that decade-old frozen negatives that were painstakingly resurrected should be put into low-quality flash galleries.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Meatwave posted:That makes sense because they just developed negatives from Antarctica 100 years ago, taken during the Shackleton expedition. Here's one: One that wanted to retain copyright on the images, assuming they actually have a legitimate claim to that. Because putting fullsize images online means giving them away for free, regardless of whether or not you intended to charge for them, and irrespective of the actual copyright law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
For anyone curious George Mallory and Andrew Irvine were on the final summit attempt of the British 1924 Everest Expedition. They were last seen by one of their climbing partners--Noel Odell--who had attempted to summit by a different route the day before. Odell, who was at camp II, wrote in his diary: quote:At 12.50, just after I had emerged from a state of jubilation at finding the first definite fossils on Everest, there was a sudden clearing of the atmosphere, and the entire summit ridge and final peak of Everest were unveiled. My eyes became fixed on one tiny black spot silhouetted on a small snow-crest beneath a rock-step in the ridge; the black spot moved. Another black spot became apparent and moved up the snow to join the other on the crest. The first then approached the great rock-step and shortly emerged at the top; the second did likewise. Then the whole fascinating vision vanished, enveloped in cloud once more. This was either on the 1st or 2nd step on the North Ridge. There is a lot of debate about which, because if it were the top of the 2nd step Mallory and Irvine were tantalizingly close to the summit. Some climbers think it would have been impossible for them to climb to the top of the 2nd Step in 1924 while others say it would have been possible but very difficult. Odell for his part was sure it was the 2nd step, then changed his mind. At the end of his life he reaffirmed his belief it was the 2nd step. So it's up for debate whether or not they summitted; however, there are a lot of tantalizing clues that lead a lot of climbing historians to speculate that they were successful. For example a recent Mallory/Irvine research expedition went up in 2010 and found Odell's 1924 camp from where he reported seeing Mallory and Irvine. They say only the 2nd step is visible from the camp's location. In 1999 an expedition sought out Mallory and Irvine and found Mallory's body. Two things were very interesting about this find. First his snow goggles were in his pocket, meaning he was most likely alive at night on decent. This strongly implies Malory and Irvine got very high on the mountain. Secondly, Mallory was reportedly carrying a photo of his wife he intended to bury in the snow on the summit and this was not found on his body. The only proof or disproof ever likely will come from the camera Sandy Irvine was carrying on the mountain--Kodak says they can develop the pictures of the camera is ever found. The problem, of course, is Irvine is still missing. A couple Chinese climbers claimed to have seen an "old English dead" above 8000m. One in 1960 and one in 1975. Unfortunately, the first climber was killed the day after he saw the body in an avalanche so could never lead anyone to the body. The second climber was defending solo and on the verge of collapse when he found the body, so he isn't sure of its precise location.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
:iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
:iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
welp
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
:iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
I'm guessing he's live-tweeting from the death zone, and lack of oxygen is kicking in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
The similarities between FYAD and Everest are pretty blatant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
The thread has summited but can we get back to base camp alive?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
BarbarousBertha posted:The similarities between FYAD and Everest are pretty blatant. A mountain of garbage, corpses, and poop?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:I'm guessing he's live-tweeting from the death zone, and lack of oxygen is kicking in. ralp as the sherpa tired of saving hypoxic retards, cutting the cord and walking off
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
I'm just going to ignore all that other poo poo and respond to this.Murphy Brownback posted:I used to think about maybe one day climbing some big mountains - not Everest or K2, but maybe the Matterhorn or Kilimanjaro. Then I went to Zermatt and took the cable car up to the Klein Matterhorn at a relatively measly height of 3820m. Under no physical strain at all I still felt very uncomfortable, like I was on the verge of being sick or passing out, or both. I can't imagine dealing with that feeling at even higher altitudes while doing physically demanding tasks, so I'll just leave that to other people and I'll just continue reading about it/watching movies about it. You would quite likely not feel that if you were to climb rather than take the cable car. It's not always the actual elevation, but speed of the ascent. I got altitude sickness from hiking up a mountain that was 3000m in elevation, but I had also driven from 1050m to 2200m in less than an hour, then scrambling up that last little bit as fast as I could. You have to acclimatize to the decreased oxygen levels. It's said that when you get above 10,000', you shouldn't move faster than 1000' vertical per day or you're really at risk. BElow that threshold, you can obviously move faster since the atmosphere is thicker, but moving a decent distance up in a really short amount of time can certainly have an effect on you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Mallorys ice rear end
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Meatwave posted:See them all here: Man - for some reason I find this to be a powerful image. How wild the fringes of the world were back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:One that wanted to retain copyright on the images, assuming they actually have a legitimate claim to that. Because putting fullsize images online means giving them away for free, regardless of whether or not you intended to charge for them, and irrespective of the actual copyright law. Was that a British expedition? If yes then copyright laws are really convoluted. For example, figuring out who owns the images on Irvine's camera, should it be found, is insane. One thing that's for sure is that they would not, in any way, belong to whoever finds them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
socrates chugwolf posted::iamafag: What happened here? Did they just post smilies? Huh. Anyway :mallorytalk: I think I posted this before but it is a rather good doc from the Eighties about Mallory. This is also the one where Brian Blessed goes up Everest and yells at it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REU-8Aig-tc Also, can't recommend this book enough  Mallory sounds like quite the charming devil who had several older men doting on him in the way that only British schoolmasters could. He avoided direct combat in WWI by higher ups locating him away from the front lines, something he didn't really want. Rondette fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Rondette posted:What happened here? Did they just post smilies? Huh. Nah it was a giant weird story with a goatse at the end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
The The Wildest Dream is a pretty good documentary about Mallory and Irvine. It also follows Conrad Anker's successful attempt to free climb the second step on the north col ridge on Everest with a novice young climber and 1924 kit. Basically Anker demonstrates that it was just within Mallory and Irvine's skill level to have made it up that step. Though I think the best line in the film is from Anker's adopted son when asked if he'd climb Everest in the 1924 outfit. "I wouldn't climb Everest." The movie is like $3 on iTunes and Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
The great thing is that it doesn't ultimately matter who climbed Everest first - either way it was done by proper explorers in the most colonial sense of the word, be it Mallory or Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Butt Wizard posted:The great thing is that it doesn't ultimately matter who climbed Everest first - either way it was done by proper explorers in the most colonial sense of the word, be it Mallory or Hillary. Hillary at least had Norgay with him as a co-climber. Edit I still prefer the romance of Mallory and Irvime doing it first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Literally the only point to summiting Everest is bragging rights. If you die before you have an opportunity to brag, then the question of whether you summited or not becomes a question of whether you died doing something pointless (summiting), or died doing something pointless (failing to summit).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Was that a British expedition? If yes then copyright laws are really convoluted. How so? Author has been dead for 70+ years --> public domain. Or is it somehow more complicated than that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:How so? Author has been dead for 70+ years --> public domain. Or is it somehow more complicated than that? I can't tell if you're an expert on UK law or if you just assumed it's the same as US law?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Wasn't the point of the CTEA to make sure US copyright terms matched the European ones? (Disclaimer, I'm not a copyright lawyer.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Krotera posted:Wasn't the point of the CTEA to make sure US copyright terms matched the European ones? It is, and they mostly are, but the problem here is probably related to "authorship," because the person who develops a negative in a traditional lightroom has creative input. When is a photograph "invented" - when the negative is exposed? Or when it's first printed/published? If I write a manuscript in 2015, but I never publish it, and then my heir finds it, edits it a bit, and publishes it in 2030, surely copyright is established beginning from 2030?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
redreader posted:I can't tell if you're an expert on UK law or if you just assumed it's the same as US law? Isn't the 70+ years a EU thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It is, and they mostly are, but the problem here is probably related to "authorship," because the person who develops a negative in a traditional lightroom has creative input. When is a photograph "invented" - when the negative is exposed? Or when it's first printed/published? If I write a manuscript in 2015, but I never publish it, and then my heir finds it, edits it a bit, and publishes it in 2030, surely copyright is established beginning from 2030? So the negatives are public domain in the intellectual sense, but the actual artifacts themselves are presumably the physical property of some entity in particular, which precludes public domain information on them from being expressed in an unlimited fashion. But if someone were to obtain those negatives and develop a new set of photographs from them and release their claims to the copyright on those images, then everyone else would have to go eat poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:How so? Author has been dead for 70+ years --> public domain. Or is it somehow more complicated than that? I think it's more complicated than that. For instance Irvine's photos will belong to one of the families of his closest related descendants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Oh, don't worry about the whole Mallory and Irvine summitting mystery. Apparently Mallory let everyone know he didn't make it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Look at this mother fuckers hands. Skip to 3:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYK_jJyH1zs Happy Hedonist fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Happy Hedonist posted:Look at this mother fuckers hands. Steck is the dreamiest dude and half the reason I return to this thread again and again. Okay maybe like an eighth. But dude's badass. Those hands are monstrous, he would be a rippin' guitarist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Is that like a fish eye lens or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
There's some neat stuff in this Nat Geo article, like how the Nepali government tripled the life insurance pay out on Sherpas. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150408-everest-climbing-sherpas-mountaineering-nepal-himalaya-guides/#routeOne 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^ Good article at NatGeo. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ent&sf8477175=1 quote:One might imagine that because of the great loss of life last year, many mountaineers would have second thoughts about attempting the mountain. Ironically, it's just the opposite. Despite calls to reduce the number of teams and climbers on Everest, Nepal's Department of Tourism recently stated that more than 350 permits have been issued for the south side of Everest—more than were issued last year before the avalanche shut down the season. quote:Despite these changes, will there still be Sherpas who no longer want to work on Everest? quote:Although the Nepali government will honor the $10,000 peak permit fee paid by all Everest climbers whose expeditions were abruptly terminated last spring, many of them will not be returning in 2015. For example, only four of the 38 Everest clients Shangri-La Nepal Trek had in 2014 are returning to attempt the mountain this year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
have you guys listened to that photographer's account of what happened in the 2013 almost-bloodbath between the sherpas and the alpine climbers? http://www.npr.org/2013/04/30/180116787/everest-fight-reveals-cultural-chasm-between-climbers-sherpas dude comes off as an arrogant prick who's either above being informed what the commercial expeditions/sherpas are doing, or knew and just didn't care. seeing the video of how fast ueli steck is going, it's easy to imagine them just kicking a bunch of ice down the mountain and pissing off the sherpas. I nearly loving lost it at the part where he's whining that you can't tell him which days he's allowed to climb a mountain
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
padijun posted:
Well, I mean, he's right. The commercial expeditions don't own the mountain and if he's being entirely self-sufficient and avoiding even using their fixed lines, they shouldn't be allowed to say "hey mountain's closed we're fixing lines." It's entirely possible they kept him looped out because he also wasn't paying them their fees and so on. They don't get to say "hey we're climbing today, if you're not part of a tourist group gently caress off."
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Eikre posted:So the negatives are public domain in the intellectual sense, but the actual artifacts themselves are presumably the physical property of some entity in particular, which precludes public domain information on them from being expressed in an unlimited fashion. But if someone were to obtain those negatives and develop a new set of photographs from them and release their claims to the copyright on those images, then everyone else would have to go eat poo poo? I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but it seems to me that something which has never been "published" is simply, and entirely, private property. Copyright is mostly laws about what rights are reserved to a creator after publication of their works. On the other hand, I doubt that if you just happen to find someone's unpublished manuscript lying around where they dropped it in the wilderness when they died, you get to just publish it yourself and claim copyrights on it. Or even claim that because it was "lost" in some way, it became public domain. I honestly don't know what laws apply there, but I'm sure it's not that straightforward. It might even be the case that Nepal's own local laws on ownership of found, abandoned property have a say. Up to and including, potentially, salvage rules, rules about things found on people's corpses when they die, inheritance rights, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Well, I mean, he's right. The commercial expeditions don't own the mountain and if he's being entirely self-sufficient and avoiding even using their fixed lines, they shouldn't be allowed to say "hey mountain's closed we're fixing lines." It's entirely possible they kept him looped out because he also wasn't paying them their fees and so on. They don't get to say "hey we're climbing today, if you're not part of a tourist group gently caress off." Yeah, seriously. The Sherpas can pretty much gently caress off, in as much they are simply part of the massive expeditions, that no, don't own the mountain. They might own the mountain when it comes to the people they handhold all the way up, sure, but other competent, self-sufficient people that just happen to be on the same mountain? Yeah, not really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 04:00
|
|
