Nearly 50 of the world’s most accomplished and respected polar explorers penned a statement today in support of Aaron Teasdale’s article in National Geographic that called into question Colin O’Brady’s claim to be the first to cross Antarctica solo and unassisted (You can read our interview with Teasdale, here).
Since the Nat Geo piece, an army of detractors, many spurred by O’Brady’s February 20 appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, have criticized Teasdale and his reporting, arguing that the article defamed O’Brady. O’Brady himself wrote a multi-page detraction of the article, demanding that Nat Geo retract it, which they have, so far, refused to do.
The signees of the letter, which you can see below, have made it clear they are responding in part because of the further confusion arising from Rogan’s interview.
“Now more than ever, telling the truth matters, so it was disappointing to hear Colin continue to use misleading statements and ignore the core themes of the arguments made against him,” says Eric Larsen, a noted polar explorer who personally guided O’Brady on a weeklong expedition to the North Pole in 2016. “As polar professionals, we want to preserve the integrity of our sport for future generations and Colin’s deceptive statements hurt those who have come before and those who will come after.”
The letter also states:
“In late 2018, Oregon-based adventurer O’Brady completed a 932-mile journey in Antarctica he called “The Impossible First,” also the title of his recent bestselling book. While his expedition was an impressive personal success for someone with little polar experience, it did not measure up to the expeditions of truly pioneering polar explorers. O’Brady claims his feat was considered impossible, people had been trying to accomplish it for a century, a previous explorer died attempting it, and he was often beyond rescue. Each of these claims is false.”
The full list of signees is below.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
In regard to the article originally entitled ‘The Problem with Colin O’Brady’ written by Aaron Teasdale and published by National Geographic, we, the professional polar adventuring, exploring and guiding community, support the article in its entirety.
We request that the article not be retracted and stand as testament to the importance of preserving truth, integrity and history in our field of endeavour.
Yours faithfully,
The ‘Polar Community’, signed:
Eric Philips. Skied five times to the South Pole. President, International Polar Guides Association and IPGA Master Polar Guide
Børge Ousland. First solo full unsupported crossing of Antarctica, 2845km. IPGA Honorary Member
Mike Horn. 5100km solo full kite-ski traverse of Antarctica
Will Steger. Transantarctica — longest traverse of Antarctica, 6020km. North Pole crossing and expedition
Geoff Somers. Transantarctica — longest traverse of Antarctica, 6020km. Polar adventurer and guide
Damien Gildea. Author of Mountaineering In Antarctica and leader of 10 expeditions to Antarctica
Robert Swan. First to ski to both the North and South Poles
Dixie Dansercoer. Multiple North Pole and South Pole expeditions and crossings. IPGA Master Polar Guide
Richard Weber. 2020km return kite-ski expedition to South Pole. IPGA Honorary Memberill
Liv Arnesen. First woman to ski solo and unsupported to the South Pole, first women crossing of Antarctica
Ann Bancroft. With Liv Arnesen first women to kite-ski across Antarctica, 2747km. North Pole by dogsled
Lonnie Dupre. Rolex-award winning Arctic explorer, North Pole expeditions and Greenland circumnav
Paul A Landry. Guided 5 expeditions to South Pole and Pole of Inaccessibility. IPGA Honorary Member
Eric Larsen. Multiple North Pole and South Pole Expeditions, Everest
Ryan Waters. Longest unsupported Antarctic ski crossing, 1800km. Everest. IPGA Master Polar Guide
Ben Saunders. Record longest polar ski journey, 2889km, with Tarka L’Herpiniere
Lars Ebbesen. Skied to South Pole, 7 times across Greenland, polar expedition manager. IPGA Honorary guide
Pen Hadow. Unsupported ski to South Pole, North Pole solo
Geoff Wilson. Two kite-ski crossings of Antarctica including the longest solo polar journey, 5300km
Christoph Höbenreich. Multiple South Pole and Antarctica expeditions. IPGA Master Polar Guide
Conrad Anker. Pioneer of multiple climbing routes in Queen Maud Land, Antarctica and Ellsworth Mountains, Antarctica
Jon Krakauer. First ascent of Rakekniven, Queen Maud Land and Vinson Massif east face
Gordon Wiltsie. National Geographic photographer. Led and documented 10 Antarctic expeditions
David Roberts. Author of Great Exploration Hoaxes
Ann Daniels. First British all-women’s team to ski to the South Pole. Polar guide.
Bengt Rotmo. Multiple polar expeditions including South Pole. IPGA Master Polar Guide
Conrad Dickinson. 2020km return kite-ski expedition to South Pole. Retired IPGA Polar Guide
Hannah McKeand. Skied 6 times to South Pole and former speed record holder. IPGA board member and Polar Guide
Doug Stoup. Skied 18 times to South Pole, twice on SPOT road. IPGA Master Polar Guide
Ramon Larramendi. First wind-powered vehicle crossing of Antarctica and to South Pole
Christian Eide. Fastest unsupported ski expedition to the South Pole.
Thomas Ulrich. Multiple North Pole and Greenland expeditions. IPGA Master Polar Guide
Inge Meløy. North Pole, South Pole, Everest
Justin Jones. Joint longest unsupported polar ski expedition, 2260km
Inge Solheim. Multiple North and South Pole expeditions, polar guide
Harald Kippenes. North Pole to Canada ski expedition, polar guide
Matthieu Tordeur. Youngest person to ski solo and unsupported to the South Pole
Alan Chambers. Full unsupported North Pole ski expedition and IPGA board member.
Odd Harald Hauge. One of the first to ski to South Pole. Greenland crossing record holder for 25 years
Michael Charavin. Greenland full kite-ski circumnavigation, 5067km. IPGA Polar Guide
Keith Tuffley. Cycled and skied unsupported to the South Pole via a new route
Martin Hartley. Polar photographer and Arctic Ocean adventurer
Einar Finnsson. Skied to the South Pole and four times across Greenland. IPGA Polar Guide
Bill Spindler. Three South Pole Station winters including station manager 1976–77
Heath Jamieson. Skied twice to South Pole, once on a new route. IPGA Polar Guide
Kathinka Gyllenhammar. Guided South Pole expedition, polar guide
Alex Hibbert. Former record holder longest polar ski journey.
Victoria Nicholson. Manager WWTW South Pole Allied Challenge, largest expedition to South Pole
Experiences listed here are condensed for the sake of brevity and may not reflect current polar classification terminology.
Top photo: Eric Philips
You need something to read? We have something to read!
Adventure Journal’s print stories are only available in print. They are deeper, longer, and more nuanced than what you find online. Find out why 99% of subscribers renew every single year.
Order a subscription and current issue you today and most U.S. address will have their copy in three days. West Coast addresses it’s 1-2 days.
From Rogan’s interview(s) – this is what I get:
“Speaking quickly is a sign that the person talking doesn’t practice what he preaches. Fast talkers love to talk for the sake of just talking or improving and boasting their image in front of others.”
Spot on
O’Brady is a lying grifter. EOS
Maybe all of you are full of it? Who knows…
You make a living having fun. Yes, I wrote fun. Wanna trade jobs? Bet you don’t!
Michael – No one has even the vaguest notion as to whatever point it is you are attempting to get across. … (?!?)
Too me, this is about Character (or the lack thereof)
As for me, I stand behind the listed and accomplished polar explorers.
O’Brady sounds to me like a typical Portlander. A little too self important, and a little to self congratulatory.
Typical of modern social thinkers.
Don’t create an article/letter that talks about inaccuracies and problems with his account, make a surface assertion and then cover the details by just dropping a list of names.
The original Nat Geo article made several statements which were provably and observably false. They decided to double down instead of deal with that. These statements destroyed any credibility that the rest of the article had to offer.
Since then, O’Brady has commented specifically on some of those errors. Nat Geo has not addressed these.
Not least of which is the fact that he specifically mentions that Ousland came before him and did something that O’Brady did not do. O’Brady has posted a picture of his actual book in actual print to back this up. It disproves assertions in the substance of the original article by Teasdale.
The idea that they got this many people together to sign a paper without addressing the problem of factual accuracy with the Teasdale article is mind-boggling to me.
O’Brady just looked for a different way to do something similar. Nobody has yet come out with a single argument stating that he did not to what he claims to have done, which is to traverse a specific, stated path across the Antarctic continent (not including the ice sheets) with a specific set of conditions.
I don’t care if people want to say he’s a douche or annoying or has embellished the significance of what he has done.
I only care about the fact that he actually did what he said he did.
And he did not do the things that Teasdale is saying he did.
Start with a fact based argument, THEN trash his character.
DO NOT SKIP the fact based argument and jump straight to trashing his character.
Simple facts:
#1 – He completed the journey according to the exact way he described that he completed his journey
#2 – He described his journey as unassisted. He did not bring any equipment to help him make the journey (ie the common tool being a parawing). This means that his journey was factually unassisted.
#3 – Ousland did take a parawing. His journey was not unassisted.
#4 – O’Brady does not say that his journey was better than Ousland. He has stated that it is different, “apples and oranges” because they were in a different class.
#5 – Ousland’s journey covered almost exactly double the distance of O’Brady’s journey. He has not disputed that.
#6 – Ousland has recorded manhauling for more than the total distance covered by O’Brady. I have not seen him dispute this, although he may have. Mathematically, this is entirely feasible and I consider this to be true.
#7 – A big deal has been made of him using groomed roads. Personally, I find this hard to rationalize since most of the terrain is windswept and relatively flat to begin with, but more importantly, there is a definition to “unassisted”. O’Brady argues that this is commonly understood to mean without a sail assist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions – this would seem to support that argument and at least one entry (not Ousland or O’Brady) is described as “unsupported (no resupply) and unassisted (no kiting)”.
Nobody that I have seen has contested #1. What he says he did, is what he did. Embellishments about its significance aside. His distance logs are not disputed and his methods are recorded.
He showed a page from his book where he talked about other people. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that he was saying he was the first of any type. There are literally dozens of expeditions listed there and many of them have slightly different conditions.
The letter asserts:
“O’Brady claims his feat was considered impossible, people had been trying to accomplish it for a century, a previous explorer died attempting it, and he was often beyond rescue. Each of these claims is false.
Good! Now we’ve got something factual to discuss. Where are the supporting details? Show where he made this claim and show how each statement is false. This is the primary argument. Not the tail between the legs, as it is presented.
I was unable to find any earlier expedition that was unsupported (no resupplies) and unassisted (no kiting) that traveled from coast to pole and pole to coast in a single excursion. I have not yet seen evidence of a no resupply, no kiting excursion to contradict that claim. I am no expert, but I was able to find dozens of similar expeditions. Nothing that matches that exact set of conditions though.
I was able to find many mentions of people attempting various different expeditions in Antarctica, going back more than 100 years. Were they specifically trying to cross Antarctica “solo, unsupported, unassisted”? That’s probably a bit of a stretch, but then again, I don’t have an exact quote to work with, so I can’t make a decision on this or answer it adequately. False? OK, prove it.
A previous explorer died attempting it. This is false?
Even in Teasdale’s article, this appears to be accepted as true. From the below article in the New Yorker, clearly inspired by Teasdale, “The Englishman Henry Worsley tried to do it four years ago, but died from the attempt.” It says on his Wiki page that he died on January 24, 2016, “Worsley died in 2016 while attempting to complete the first solo and unaided crossing of the Antarctic.” Is this not what O’Brady was referring to? Provide SOURCES.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-polar-explorer-colin-obrady-and-the-problem-with-firsts
He was often beyond rescue… I don’t know how to respond to this. I haven’t seen this assertion by O’Brady. I looked at an earlier article that was favorable and it did not mention this at all. PROVIDE SOURCES.
https://www.pdxmonthly.com/travel-and-outdoors/2019/03/the-inside-tale-of-colin-obradys-death-defying-record-breaking-antarctic-crossing
He did state that he was often in white-out conditions and blizzards with very low visibility. I don’t think he can get rescued in those conditions, but I could be wrong.
This article, like the others before it are piss-poor journalism. There are no sources and nothing lines up with anything substantial. Sharpen your pencils boys.
The letter is frankly embarrassing. 48 polar explorers who appear to be butthurt because some Portland snowflake did something that ticked a couple of boxes different from the other guys.
This is sycophancy and social thinking at its worst. I expect better from hard men.
I am an amateur powerlifter. I lift raw. I lift conventional and I lift beltless most of the time. If someone comes along and lifts 50kg more than me while wearing a suit, knee wraps and wrist straps, yeah I’m going to point that out. If he starts claiming that his lift was raw, I’m going to point that out too.
But the other side of that is that if he starts claiming that he’s bucketloads stronger than me because he lifts more than me while using all that equipment, I’m going to speak out.
However, if he says he did all that and acknowledges that what he did is different from what I did, guess what? I don’t get my panties in a twist. I lose nothing when I welcome another lifter into the community and praise him for his accomplishments.
This is a really bad look for these 48 whiners on the letter who can’t be bothered to support their claims. Pathetic.
One of the pathetic, whining 48 here.
Since errors apparently undermine entire letters (Source: you, above), I’ll just pick out a few of yours:
Your #2. You represent this as if a clear and defined classification. The word unassisted means different things to different people. Its source was the couple who used to run ExWeb. They had a habit of creating ‘universal’ definitions that conveniently placed their own trips in the top categories.
Your #4. This is not correct use of apples and oranges. The phrase means that two similarly-sized and similarly-attractive objects are nonetheless too different to be compared fairly. Here we are comparing two journeys wildly different in endurance, scale and skill. It’s apples and prunes.
Your #7. This is patently untrue. Icecaps, whether windblown or not, resist travel on skis and with pulks in a TOTALLY different way to a uniformly groomed snow track. The difference is not a few percentage points, but a matter of 1.5x, 2.0x etc.
The reason the letter has weight is because the signatories understand a little of what they are defending.
All best.
Thanks for replying Alex.
I’m not sure I find your arguments to be as compelling as you might think they look.
I am not part of your community and I do not participate in your sport, so I am looking at this through the lens of a “layperson”, but a Canadian who is not completely ignorant of snow and skis. I am not able to refute anything about the actual journey and I don’t know O’Brady and have not read his book. I am just talking about my perspective and how I have seen the information presented and what I turned up by spending about 10 minutes reading up on the subject. You can dismiss my opinions probably without any real sacrifice. But I think the arguments I present above and below are reasonable.
#2 – I did not present the idea as if he has written the dictionary on the subject. I presented the idea that it’s a reasonable thing to say. I supported that with evidence by referencing the list on Wikipedia, which does in fact appear to consider the term “unassisted” as synonymous or at least strongly related to “no kiting”.
If it was me, I wouldn’t explain things in that way if “unassisted” isn’t a strongly defined term, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for him to say that when I can go to the most accessible resource in common understanding and I can see plainly with my own two eyes that his claim is correct that “unassisted” means “no kiting” in some authoritative resources on the subject.
If it was me, I’d actually be specific and say “unassisted (no kiting)” rather than just “unassisted”, so it’s very clear. However, I also think O’Brady has tried to do that to some degree.
And I don’t think that you’re trying to assert that Ousland did the trip with no kiting, you’re just trying to argue definitions and semantics here.
Perhaps this is partly because I am not in the community of elite polar explorers, but this is my perspective as a “layperson”. For me, when I look at wikipedia, I see agreement with that resource and with what O’Brady is saying that “unassisted” means “no kiting”.
From wikipedia:
2015–2016 – Luke Robertson (UK) becomes the first Scot – and the first person with an artificial pacemaker – to ski solo, unsupported (no resupply) and unassisted (no kiting) from the coast of Antarctica (Hercules Inlet) to the South Pole.[44]
Most others talk specifically about their equipment, mostly regarding kites or no kites. I don’t see any that talk about groomed roads or not.
I don’t see this as the core of your argument though. You seem to be more concerned with the relative social merit awarded to O’Brady compared to that of Ousland. I think the issue is term definitions and should stay at that.
Ousland – unsupported (no resupplies), O’Brady – unsupported (no resupplies), unassisted (no kiting).
Ousland – with kiting, O’Brady, no kiting. This actually lines up with the way I saw O’Brady presenting it, so I don’t really see why you have gotten so excited about it.
#4 Apples and oranges vs apples and prunes – Well I would use the powerlifting example here because it is the lens through which I see many sporting achievements. Ousland traveled twice as far in 20% more time and used “equipment”.
In powerlifting, most people can add 50-100kg (or whatever relevant substantial amount) to their lifts by using equipment (it’s called equipped lifting). You cannot compare a raw lift with an equipped lift. They are considered apples and oranges.
Your alternate of apples and prunes makes no sense.
Apples and oranges are two totally different fruits from different families of fruits.
Apples and plums are two totally different fruits from different families of fruits. Prunes are dried plums.
We use “apples and oranges” to denote two things that are similar (ie both fruits), but fundamentally different in a clear and critical way.
I have *never* heard anyone use apples and oranges to denote two things of similar attractiveness. You using the word “prunes” somehow satisfies your personal desire to insult a person because of how you *feel* about their accomplishment being less “attractive”. I count that as an attempt at social manipulation and some pretty poor sportsmanship on your part.
You might be a pretty good explorer, but you don’t seem to understand how to compare two things together in a meaningful and factually dispassionate way.
If someone compares Eddie Hall’s 500kg deadlift to Andy Bolton’s lifts, a powerlifter wouldn’t get butthurt and try to say Eddie Hall is a bad guy, they explain, nor would a strongman get butthurt and try to say that Andy Bolton is a weak pretender with his 457.5kg world record. We would simply explain that these things are slightly different in a very relevant way. Apples and oranges. Not Apples and Prunes because prunes are ugly and people don’t like prunes.
Now I’m personally a raw lifter. And while we give full credit to equipped lifting, we would probably be more likely to put the “prunes” of your example on equipped lifting. Yes, we get smaller numbers, but it’s 100% our effort. So I suppose it’s not all that surprising that I’m defending O’Brady, who didn’t use a kite and traveled a shorter distance, for possibly a less impressive accomplishment, but we know that 100% of the locomotive effort came from him, groomed roads or not.
The assertion is that excursions with kiting are fundamentally different than excursions without kiting. Apples and oranges. They are both challenging excursions across a continent, but one of them has a specific set of equipment that makes the experience quite different. How much different is probably a robust debate in itself, but is it safe to say they are different in a substantial way? I would personally go with yes. The simple fact that with kiting, Ousland was able to travel twice the distance in just 20% more time is pretty clear proof that there’s something very different about the two accomplishments.
If you want to use the term apples and prunes, it is substantially sufficient, so it’s totally fine for the example provided, but it certainly says something about you.
#7 – I will accept your explanation that groomed roads might be significantly easier to traverse than ungroomed ice caps. Since I am Canadian and have some experience with snow myself, I can appreciate 1.5x and 2.0x as being strongly relevant where it comes to a journey of 1000 miles. I can also appreciate that using a kite would be a *massive* difference far in excess of 1.5x or 2.0x. My experience with kiting would be closer to kitesurfing, sailing on boats and ice sailing. How much faster can you go using kitesurfing compared to paddling? How much faster can you go with a sailboat compared to rowing? Probably the closest analogue is ice sailing. How much faster can you go ice sailing compared to pushing the boat along the ice?
That’s my frame of reference and Joe Rogan also pointed this out – Ousland had one day where he traveled more than 100 miles in one day. So clearly the kite helps quite a lot. O’Brady didn’t travel more than 100 miles in one day simply because he got onto a groomed road. And that’s relatable to the general public. Running on a dirt road isn’t usually that much slower than running on a paved road. Running on a beach, well, you might have a better comparison there, but they were both on skis, so I don’t think this is a very good comparison myself.
I would also ask the second question of that – when under kite power, how much energy is expended? Is this akin to having a rest day? I don’t imagine so at all. But is it a lot easier than just packing straight? I don’t find that hard to believe at all. And if he was able to do more than 100 miles in one day, I think that’s a pretty solid proof that it is pretty significant.
And that’s OK. It just informs us that there’s a reason that records are considered dramatically different when they are with kiting compared to with no kite.
So that leads to the obvious solution. Instead of getting butthurt and getting a social movement together where you try to convince the world that what O’Brady did was less like an orange and more like a prune, just add another term to your definitions.
So O’Brady, unsupported (no resupplies), unassisted (no kiting), groomed road pathing.
There, done. I fixed it. No need for butthurt, just be clear about what the terms mean. Instead of saying that these terms *don’t* mean anything, go the other way. Make them mean something. Then people can understand exactly what is being talked about and make their own meaningful comparisons.
My last example of powerlifting is that of the sumo deadlift vs the conventional deadlift. There are some very specific reasons why the sumo stance is considered less impressive, particularly if the person is short. But according to the rules and the record books, they are considered as equal. In the community however, we do understand that for some people, a sumo stance deadlift is quite a lot easier than a conventional deadlift. We don’t add butthurt. We just say “sumo” when a clarification is required.
For me, I personally don’t care about the groomed roads because I think that there’s going to be sections where the non groomed paths are just as easy (especially on the ice floes) and there’s going to be sections of groomed roads that are overblown and just as hard as ungroomed. I also don’t know what percentage of the route was groomed.
From what I can see on the wikipedia page, almost every entry talks about skis, poles, resupplies and kites. I don’t see any which talk about groomed roads. So maybe it’s not considered a big enough deal by your community to set established terms. Or maybe it’s something that ought to be changed. 48 people in the community getting together to write a letter? Why not do something constructive and set up some terms and definitions standards instead of whining and complaining about one guy using groomed roads.
It’s really not a good look for your community when so many of you can get together and compile a list that I was able to poke some pretty big holes in as someone who knows very little about your community which you haven’t even been able to refute.
Whilst I do respect the tomes you’re committed to offering up, in reply to both your rebuttals, it’s fairly clear that there’s not a response from me, short of full retraction (which I cannot offer since I stand by each point), that would’t precipitate another contrarian outburst. Outbursts that contain probably more uses of the word ‘butthurt’ than defensible when your key theme is for reasoned and evidenced, unemotional discourse.
All my best to you and your weight lifting – be it with or without straps!
Well I do see an attempt at reasoned discourse, I don’t agree that it’s evidenced, since you didn’t deal with any of the evidence I provided and you provided none of your own that sufficiently rebutted any of my points.
As to unemotional, again, I provided sources and references for every single point I made. You provided none.
You joined in a letter that disparages O’Brady using points that are demonstrably false. And I actually demonstrated that. And he demonstrated that before. And you guys just doubled down on points that were already proven false and inaccurate.
If you’re not basing your argument on facts, then what? It’s clearly an emotional response to O’Brady, who is a guy who has little pedigree in the realm of polar exploration and who has done something that appears to have trodden on the toes of a very well respected and accomplished explorer.
What other word would you use if someone had come in and done something without having gained the appropriate social status to challenge the reigning alpha?
I would call it social argumentation. I would call it emotional. I would call it butthurt. And I think it’s completely fitting.
If you want to argue facts, you know that I can provide robust argumentation that is fact based. You said yourself that I provided “tomes”… Or you can point to one or two uses of a word that show your hypocrisy and elitism, call offense and retreat with your tail between your legs.
You can always tell what a person’s motives are when they provide no support to their arguments and you provide support for your own arguments and their response is that what you wrote is too long.
Give me a break Alex. If you believe in what you have put your name to, you will argue your stance and you will support your arguments as I have. And yes, it might be long. But you’re not in Grade 2. It’s not that hard.
You put your own name down to that letter, so you get to defend it. If you can’t, then yes, you probably should retract your name – or try to get the letter retracted because it’s clearly indefensible on multiple points.
I made 7 points and you could only rebut 3 of those. I’ve successfully defended two of those and conceded that the third is ambigious and can go either way but needs a standard to be established for definitions of terms before either O’Brady can safely make his claims or the opposed can credibly argue them.
Seriously man, you just lost an argument with a guy who isn’t in the community using basic logic and a few wikipedia links because you can’t support any of your statements even at that level. Not exactly confidence inspiring that you are an expert on the subject.
These comments are getting personal and off-topic. This is the last of the back and forth we will allow.
O’Brady claimed to be out of reach of rescue on the Joe Rogan interview. “You can’t just get an Uber out here.” That’s true, but not true that no rescue attempt would be made by available hands if he was in trouble.
Entirely true.
A rescue can be *attempted* anywhere on Earth, anytime. Nowhere is fundamentally beyond rescue. Even the North Pole in winter, in a storm, is possible with unlimited resources (world class helicopter crews in robust military helos with in-flight refuelling). Rescues have been made on vertical rock faces and on high 8000m+ peaks.
The ‘if there’s a storm we can’t be rescued’ line is intentionally misleading to sound hardcore. If there’s a storm, you probably can’t be rescued easily from the summit of your local hill – but that’s not as impressive on a radio show.
Again, I’ve heard of situations where rescue efforts were stopped because of weather.
My father worked with the Canadian Coast Guard with a few missions in the arctic circle. They also use helicopters. Dual prop heavies in fact.
It is not true that they will go out in any conditions. They will go out in some pretty terrible conditions, but there’s also lots of conditions where they will choose to wait out the storm.
I live in Asia where there are typhoons which cause landslides. There are conditions where helicopters do not attempt rescue.
You’re part of that community Alex, You’re one of the 48 who signed that letter. You should know this.
I can’t speak for what the details about which conditions are that they would refuse, but O’Brady talked about whiteout blizzard conditions. I would expect heavy winds and zero visibility given that it’s Antarctica and the poles do in fact have some pretty extreme weather.
For reference though, look at the most famous example – Mt Everest. People die in blizzards there all the time.
But according to your vision of things, there would at least be a rescue attempted because “Rescues have been made on vertical rock faces and on high 8000m+ peaks.”
So I guess nobody could ever die in a blizzard on Mt Everest then? No real danger. They’re just being intentionally misleading to sound hardcore.
You’re starting to sound less like part of the community and more like a butthurt Twitter troll there Alex. You tried to tell me above that the people involved in the community actually know what they are talking about. So back that up.
If you’re really part of that community, don’t give me some vague nonsense like that, tell me about specific details that you know because this is a part of planning and sometimes failure for these expeditions. Tell me about the conditions that would force the military to keep their choppers grounded. Tell me about rescues that happened under terrible conditions where the military was like “yeah, it’s whiteout, but it’s not really a problem for us”.
If he says that it’s “not exactly Uber”, then if you want to take the opposite stance that he’s being a dramatic hypelord, you need to actually argue your point in a way that is credible and substantial. Not weaksauce trashing to support character attacks.
Hi Patrick
I would look at Explorer’s Web’s look into the crossing and where other crossings have happened in Antarctica.
https://explorersweb.com/2019/01/09/crossing-antarctica-how-the-confusion-began-and-where-do-we-go-from-here/
I think the starting point and finishing point are a major sticking point to the claim he has made.
The author of the piece is one of the 48 people who signed the letter and is one of the foremost experts on mountaineering and trans Antarctica attempts.
All this list signifies is that you are just as bad as each other given the opportunity to make a claim. Whilst i agree that it is a great achievement for all of these people, do not come across as some kind of elitist posh boys club where only the finest can get in or be accepted, this in no way adds to your personal credibility or the viability of such adventures.
If making a series of reasoned, accurate points to counter unreasoned and misleading points is ‘bad as each other’, then no debate or mediation can reconcile such fundamental differences in worldview.
It’s a competitive industry, by virtue of the fact there’s livelihoods involved. That’s no bad thing. Why would we not wish this to reflect performance, and thereby reward the elite?
The rest of your post is a non-sequitur, so there’s no point engaging.
I used to be a professional freeride snowboarder and as much as I would like to defend the industry and snow sports as a livelihood, I can also feel strongly enough in character to object and call out certain elements of the snow sports industry which negatively impact the image of the sport. Nobody told you to become a polar explorer, it’s not a necessity or a means of every day life, still it’s about remaining humble and genuine and not believing yourself as part of an elite group of society that deserves respect. Here is an idea, why not embrace another polar explorer into your world and help them to better understand the community rather than drop the ladder and almost bully said person out of the spotlight? It doesn’t promote a good image at all and as mentioned above makes it look as if the goals for credibility are judged solely on a select group of group dictating them i.e. elitism.
With this I certainly can engage, as I’d completely agree with you in many respects. However, the ‘old and bold’ do regularly embrace the new generation. Borge Ousland works regularly with Vincent Colliard, for example.
However, this stand taken by Nat Geo, the journalist, and the 50+, isn’t bullying. This is because you can’t bully across, or up. It’s not even just jostling for position in a competitive environment.
O’Brady could have avoided this easily by:
1. Not making such overtly questionable claims that positioned himself as a world class polar explorer.
2. Once aware of the displeasure the community has for false claims or misleading PR, sitting back, thinking, apologising, and conceding the many points on which he was just plain wrong. His interviews show that the calmly stopping and thinking bit doesn’t come naturally.
3. Not become highly aggressive and litigious in the face of such a challenge. Positioning himself as a victim would be ridiculous, given the extent of the downstream commercial success, and therefore resources and influence that bought him. The latter, in many minds, gained fraudulently.
The critics of this collective action by polar experts and journalists tend to focus on a sense that it’s an unjust and unnecessary, and even petty or jealous, playground game against a poor, powerless man at the start of his career.
This simply isn’t the case, and the reason why so many have come together (in fact some of whom don’t otherwise see eye to eye much of the time) is because it’s an arena where they can defend truth, proportion, fairness, and the career they have reasonably built, without lies, over years or decades.
I truly hope that O’Brady will concede at some point, and realise that doubling down here is a fool’s errand… even if he can use a loophole/skewed language to win 2 out of 100 challenges made against him, and therefore claim vindication.
I’ll bow out in this comments section now, as more would simply be repetition. I’m comfortable/resigned that some will be too far entrenched to ever shift.
Alex,
I have read through your conversations with Jimmy and Malachai. I just have to say that all anyone really seems to be asking for is some reasoned evidence to the claims that you are making. Is that so wrong? Answer their questions. At least answer Colin’s questions.
I read the article and before I read the comments I even thought to myself how void it was of any real evidence. Then I scrolled a little lower and it became clear that there were 48 people who felt that they simply had the authority to lay claims without evidence simply because they are experts in their field. That’s wrong.
Clearly a kite is different than no kite. Just admit that at the very least.
I understand that you have “bowed out” of this comment section but what I don’t understand is how any other reply would be repetition; for example, one reply could be to simply answer the questions posed to you by some of the commenters here.
And really…
“If making a series of reasoned, accurate points to counter unreasoned and misleading points is ‘bad as each other’, then no debate or mediation can reconcile such fundamental differences in worldview.”
This is just outright hypocritical coming from you.
Great reply, Jimmy. Well done.
At least I could pretend it was for science. This is just about ego. Cure cancer , pick up garbage off the side of the road anything is more meaningful than this. Christ, men have been on the moon !
With this principle, all sport (and indeed all non-vital entertainment, like cinema), must be banned.
Its like flying a balloon around the world. Not a sport. That s silly. It’s a rich white guy thing.
Thank goodness we have you to inform us what does and doesn’t qualify as a sport, based on the socioeconomic and racial status of the participants.
After reading the several articles and points made by both sides, I think it’s clear that the polar explorer community is being overly protective of their “identity” and are unfairly portraying this guy. Based on the class definitions of supplied vs not supplied and aided vs unaided, one can apply a little deduction and reasoning and say that he did exactly what he purported to do. To say otherwise is semantics and splitting hairs.
And if you’re in the middle of Antarctica in a 3 day snowstorm, you’re not getting rescued. Period. That’s common sense. Even if it’s theoretically feasible no one is coming. Bottom line: haters gonna hate. Id be ashamed if my name was listed above. I think most reasonable adults that saw the facts would think the same.
Dansercoer’s comment in the NatGeo article sums it up well:
“The young ones couldn’t care less if they’re caught lying. See in [the United States] what’s happening—it’s becoming the new normal.”
Are we sure O’Brady isn’t a Trump spawn? He’s a supreme marketer with little substance, always balancing truth with borderline truth. With people like him, what he doesn’t say is more telling than what he does say. I mean, this whole ideal with not being upfront with using the SPoT road. He’s a real piece of work.
As an active outdoor enthusiast and avid promoter of the outdoors it is definitely interesting to see both sides. Colin found a loop hole and in such doing so claimed to be the first. There is no doubt that he did it first. There is also only three people to attempt this specific route (to my knowledge). The lack of individuals attempting this route is 100% not due to the complexity but due to the lack of “extreme exploration”.
What he has done is definitely something many humans could never attempt or complete but if 100 top explorers attempted this route I would wager to say that 99 would complete it in the same fashion. This is most definitely not worthy of Honnold (Free solo), Ousland (Original Antarctic crossing, Anker/Chin/Ozturk (Meru), Caldwell (Dawn Wall), Messner (too many to name) or any other non human appearing feats.
The reason Colin’s trek is a conflict is that there have been numerous people that have skied to the South Pole from the coast but Colin was the first to do this specific route due to the lack of significance in this route ie 1/3 of it on a semi maintained groomed path. Outside influence on a trek IS assisted therefore a path created by other humans is assisted. Before any comments are posted regarding assisted vs non, I am well versed in the terms in the polar community and road is never mentioned as it was, in my opinion, ….obvious. Colin’s distance excelled greatly in the last third of his trip not because something came over him but because he was on a path.
If I do this same path with curlers 100yds ahead of me grooming the way and I complete it faster then does that make it extreme enough to call impossible? Does that make it more impossible than any other since I did it first?
This was most definitely not impossible but would have been better suited to be named “My Impossible First”.
Well said Jake, my sentiments exactly.
It’s bad enough he speaks louder then he acts. It’s worse when he continues the theme (including the strategic omissions wrt roads, earlier explorers, etc) when faced with a clearly oblivious journalist that buys his ‘worlds first impossible record breaker’ status. I would feel mighty uncomfortable to be misunderstood and portrayed like that, evwn if it gets me a few more likes and sales…
But for a journo of ‘newyorktimes-quality’ to be falling for that is also quite a sad state of affairs…