Talk:George Mallory

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?

The ownership issue is a huge can of worms. First, the copyright law on ownership of images has changed a number of times. The point often left out is that Capt. John Noel supplied all the cameras with the specific agreement that he had all rights to all photos Second, there is now a long list of claimants. One example: an Wynn Harris, a climber on the expedition of 1933 once told Hoyland that he had "loaned" his camera to Mallory for Mallory's final assault--and therefore he owned the image rights and Noel's VPK camera. Of course the Royal Geographic Society also claims ownership although more on general principles than for any obvious reason. Sandra Noel, Capt. Noel's daughter, also makes claims and would seem to be the most likely rightful owner. However, the issue is so complicated, the practical answer is he with gold rules. The camera and any images are rumored to have a market value of around $500K, so any discoverer can expect a substantial legal challenge to get everything. [Tom Holzel] 69.121.230.58 (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

[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)

The major problem with obtaining images from Irvine's 126-type film (Not 35mm) would be damage due to cosmic radiation. This radiation at that altitude would quickly destroy modern color film, but the 126 B &W film was not particularly sensitive to Cosmic radiation. Nevertheless if the camera is found lying out in the open and not shielded by Irvine's body, its images would likely have been lost. There are only a handful of old-timers familiar and experienced in rescuing old film left in the world. One, who wishes to remain anonymous, has conferred at length with Senior scientists from Kodak (now all retired) has determined that the developing procedure espoused by Kodak is not optimum (they wanted to use their own chemicals) and the two have agreed that his novel procedure would be superior. However, the urge to do it themselves--say by National Geographic "experts," can be overwhelming. [Tom Holzel] 69.121.230.58 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2018 (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?

I believe he is at the point shown in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ucBrk2sx0&feature=youtu.be [Tom Holzel] 69.121.230.58 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

Still alive and Kicking. [Tom Holzel] 69.121.230.58 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2018 (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)

George Mallory first to summit Everest

There is no doubt that Mallory summited Everest. He shot off a flare rocket from the top of the summit witnessed by two men who had a telescope on the summit . That was the victory of the climb rocket he took with him. The men were later told what they saw was a snow reflection and not to officially report it.

The question is what is considered a successful summit. IF you reach the top and then die is that a successful summit? Many people believe a successful summit. Is to climb to the top of a mountain and then return to the bottom alive. Medical doctors have said if both tried to climb and reach the summit it would have been a 25% chance of making it.IF Mallory took all the O2 and made a single suicide climb to the top his odds were 50%. In either case both died on top of the mountain.

Most professional mountain climbers believe that Mallory reached the summit and then later died on his way down. The lack of oxygen and extreme cold were factors in his death.

Mallory summit question

Would it not be possible to check Mallory's fingers or toes in order to get a better idea if he had reached the summit or Not?

Climbers today often get frostbite after they reach a very high altitude and that's with the modern gear so would it not stand to reason mallorys digets would be first bitten? Kootenayboy (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Frostbite is pretty rare, and unrelated to whether or not a climber achieved a summit or not. In fact, getting summit is one reason why climbers might turn around short of the summit. So it wouldn't tell you much. Stevage 02:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

LGBT people from England

Why is this under the category LGBT people from England? No supported within text. --DBBell (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@DBBell He was at least bisexual, yes disappointing it merely says he was "friends with" a bunch of Bloomsbury Group gays. 2A01:4B00:BE01:6600:86C7:B7C7:11DB:793C (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Removed claim

>Wang reportedly found Mallory's ice axe near his body (and took it with him). If this is true, then Mallory not only survived the initial fall with Irvine, but was in possession of his axe until the last seconds before striking a rock that stopped his final fall.

I'm very dubious about this claim so have removed it. Stevage 02:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

School info missing

Does anyone possessing the referenced books (the Wade Davis book or Robert Graves' biography) know two things strangely omitted from the article who could add them??

• He was studying history (one link says "to read history", I assume that's strange old-fashioned English for studying it??), then "gained his degree". A degree in History?
• He taught at Charterhouse. What exactly did he teach? History? Literature? Mountaineering??

I get that all anyone cares about is that he climbed stuff, but "Teacher" is listed as one of his two professions. This page would be more complete if it could list these two rather relevant things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:981:8EBE:1:6D5F:9B94:BB91:15A3 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Acid

I search up has anyone checked her from Mount Everest and this is what came up with though 207.230.69.105 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Hillary Opinion on the summit question.

IN private conversations Hillary said it is 50/50 George Mallory reached the top. Unless a camera is found it cant be verified either way. As for summiting Mount Everest i was the first to reach the top. My climb is verified by many sources. And i survived to reach the base of the mountain after the climb to the top. IF Mallory reached the top and died on the way down its a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:A022:2D41:E539:5B8E:74F2:2BAE (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Percy Wyn-Harris.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Birkenhead

The location of Birkenhead in Cheshire only needs to be mentioned once. Similarly the note "Please do not alter this historically correct information. Birkenhead is now part of the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, Merseyside, but it was part of Cheshire until 1974. All the dates and information about Birkenhead in this article refer to pre-1974" does not need to be repeated each time Birkenhead is mentioned (if at all).

I hope we can agree that is the correct drill. Thank you. Nedrutland (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, I invite @Zephronion: to explain why the Birkenhead note is necessary, and, if it is necessary once, why it needs to be repeated. I believe it was only you that recently added "Birkenhead, Merseyside"; if there had been a history of editors repeatedly adding Merseyside, the need for the note would be clearer. Nedrutland (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Length

This article is just extremely long. There are numerous parts with excessive citations, and a lot of the material here doesn't seem to precisely convey what Mallory was actually well-known for. What should be cut? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zephronion Would you kindly like to explain how this article, which before the cuts, was longer than the United States article? It still has hundreds more citations than the United States article. It is patently obvious that there is a lot of undue weight and trivial information. As per WP:LENGTH, we should strongly consider removing material. Before your additions, this article was at around ~70,000 bytes, which was far more manageable.

Keep in mind that the United States article was considered too long...and this article is even longer.

The problems are evident. For instance:

• Trained at the camp with the Royal Artillery's new generation of 60-pounder heavy guns, which had a maximum firing range of about 12,300 yd (11,247 m). The details on the guns just aren't crucial information on an article about this subject.
• During his second year at Magdalene, Mallory made several new friends outside the college. This is just plain trivia.
• Trip to Ireland Section. This whole section boils down to speculation and subject matter not really commonly associated with Mallory. You could probably just put down "Mallory supported the Irish struggle for independence." And that would be perfectly fine. (Probably).
• On 1 July 1916, the Battle of the Somme began with British and French infantries attacking the Germans along the Somme. The 40th Siege Battery's primary duty was to fire a lifting barrage at the opposing force. We could condense the entirety of his military career, frankly.
• Christiana Ruth Turner (1891–1942) was the second daughter of prosperous architect Hugh Thackeray Turner (1853–1937) and Mary Elizabeth Turner (née Powell; 1854–1907)... The entire section devoted to Ruth is just unnecessary. We could just say they were married?

These are just a few examples. You could cut the article in half and you'd still be able to find material to toss away. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. This article is a bit of a mess. Also there are huge swathes of material written by authors where he or she is citing their own book rather than secondary sources, i.e. self promotion/COI. I thought that goes against Wikipedia rules? 31.94.19.13 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Which parts in particular? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to almost all the subheadings under the "Lost on Everest for 75 years". Holzel's section seems to rely entirely on his own book, for example. I am new here so don't know how to start the 'citation needed' ball rolling. 31.94.19.13 (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)