The FBI named him a fugitive

@ftapon What date was he named a fugitive because I guarantee he was unalived by then. You do realize he was only home for 2 weeks before he unalived himself, right? It wasn't known until a month later.

@@sr2291 Brian Laundrie was officially declared a fugitive by the FBI on September 23, 2021, when a federal arrest warrant was issued for him

Brian Laundrie was officially declared a fugitive by the FBI on September 23, 2021, when a federal arrest warrant was issued for him[4]. This warrant was not directly related to Gabby Petito's death, but rather for the unauthorized use of a debit card. The timeline leading up to this declaration is as follows: 1. September 1, 2021: Laundrie returned to Florida without Petito[1]. 2. September 11, 2021: Petito's family reported her missing[1]. 3. September 14, 2021: Laundrie's family claimed this was the last day they saw him, as he supposedly left for a nature reserve[1][4]. 4. September 23, 2021: The FBI issued a federal arrest warrant for Laundrie[4]. It's important to note that Laundrie was initially considered a person of interest in Petito's disappearance before being declared a fugitive. The fugitive status was specifically tied to the arrest warrant for financial crimes, not directly for Petito's homicide, although he remained a key figure in that investigation as well[3][5]. Citations: [1] Timeline of events since Gabby Petito's fiancé returned to Florida ... www.ksbw.com/article/timeline-of-events-since-gabby-petito-s-fiance-returned-to-florida-becomes-clearer/37790964 [2] Laundrie search: FBI focusing on cell phone, surveillance video www.wpbf.com/article/fbi-search-for-brian-laundrie-focusing-on-cellphone-surveillance-video/37796277 [3] Brian Laundrie search: Coroner arrives at Florida park after fugitive's ... www.kadn.com/news/crime/brian-laundrie-search-coroner-arrives-at-florida-park-after-fugitives-items-found/article_5e04126d-5a31-5a19-adfc-2ac047844af6.html [4] Federal arrest warrant issued for Brian Laundrie, FBI says - WBAL-TV www.wbaltv.com/article/federal-arrest-warrant-issued-for-brian-laundrie-fbi-says/37712890 [5] Brian Laundrie notebook confession revealed: 'Couldn't go on ... www.klfy.com/national/brian-laundrie-notebook-confession-revealed-couldnt-go-on-without-gabby-petito/

@@ftapon And he was already deceased by Septembet 14. So he didn't live long enough to be a fugitive.

@@ralphtaylor787 what evidence would you have to see to change your mind?

@@ftapon any evidence whatsoever. For years I listened to Forrest Fenn and Searchers crying that if you didn’t have pictures then you didn’t have anything. Now I personally have hours upon hours and hundreds of pictures of myself searching. And here we are with literally nothing from Forrest Fenn or Jack Stuef because no this what they have. With that being factual I don’t see where anyone could bring themselves to believe any of this hoax.

Any evidence. For years I listened to Forrest Fenn and Searchers claiming that if you didn’t have pictures of yourself finding the treasure chest then you didn’t have a valid claim. We have many people today, mostly KZfaqrs , that accept Jack Stuef as the legitimate Finder with any evidence whatsoever besides hearsay and speculation. Yet when presented with any concrete evidence from anyone else, that person is shunned away as they claim you have no proof. I have hours upon hours of videos and hundreds of pictures of myself searching and digging. I also have quite a compilation of evidence that clearly shows the ending was faked. Where is one single video or picture from/of Jack Stuef searching for or with the treasure chest? There isn’t any. Jack Stuef has even said that he doesn’t know the solve. The only evidence that has ever been presented has been hearsay or speculation. Jack Stuef didn’t find anything other than a paycheck.

@@ftapon allow me to ask you the same question. What evidence would you have to see to believe that the ending, and quite possibly the entire treasure hunt, was a complete hoax?

@@ralphtaylor787 So you couldn't figure out the simple poem and didn't find anything so it was a hoax. The poem makes perfect sense and leads you straight to it. Everything he gave as a hint also makes sense once you know the location.....sore loser.

@@frankcruz8863 you're right and they do

@@weightelk you are perceptive! 😉

@@ftapon I may be totally wrong, I just have been using chatgpt nonstop since gpt 3.5 and it has a subtle yet distinctive tone. It's a very useful tool.

Yes, it would be nice to get the solution one day.

@@ftaponyeah, you can forget that.

Thanks for your feedback. You're right. Here's why: 1. Glen is my good friend. When I interviewed Sym Blanchard (another good friend), I noticed that I interrupted him more often than usual. My friends don't take my interruptions as rude. With guests I don't know, I'm more cautious as I don't want to offend them. I feel more at ease with my friends. 2. Pacing. Bill Maher interrupts his guests often. This is common when you want to get the essential facts out quickly. I'm open to learning and improving, and your feedback is valuable in this process.

@@ftapon Thanks for receiving my words kindly. As a viewer, I am watching your "hero of the story". Viewers want to hear from the hero. Watch Graham Bensinger's videos, and notice how he leads the interview, but let's the person talk. You get the feeling that Graham IS the "viewer" at home, talking to the "hero". Graham makes you feel like only the title character is telling the story, at a digestible pace. This type of conversation is an art. You have bursts of amazing enthusiasm. You may consider guiding it, to let the story build on it's own. Even if the person doesn't tell the story in the style that you want to convey it, that can be done in your editing the flow of the conversation, cuts and fills. Best wishes, and I will be watching for more great interviews.

@@davidbaldwin1591 Thanks! And I encourage you to listen to my other interviews. You'll see my normal style. ;-)

@@youa._ answer is in the podcast

@@kingcacherjimking7428 I just learned about KZfaq podcasts, so uploaded my 300 episodes recently. Sorry for the confusion. I released that episode right when the treasure was discovered. Although it's old news, I hope you enjoyed it!

Yes, your family can visit you during A-school. You'll need to pre-clear them so they get through the security gate. There are hotels on the base where they can stay. You have limited free time on most weekends. After graduation, you have a couple of days to return home. Usually, the military gives you 10 days of liberty to move to your new duty station. The military does provide up to 10 days of leave in the form of Permissive Temporary Duty (PTDY) in conjunction with a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move. This leave will facilitate house hunting and settling into the new duty station.

@@ftapon thank you. What about HM a school, will I be able to go home for Christmas?

@@lovealwaysjasmine usually but not always

I tend to reject conspiracy theories, including the idea that the Chinese took Irvine off the mountain. It's possible but unlikely. It requires significant effort to do that. And what would be the point? It would only matter if Irvine's body had evidence (e.g., a camera or summit rocks) that they summitted before the Chinese. In that case, just take the stones and camera and leave the body intact. The camera's film could only be developed if they had a darkroom at base camp. If they waited until they returned home, it would be ruined, say experts. Lastly, there's a chance they wanted to hide the unsightly dead body for aesthetic reasons. If so, instead of doing the backbreaking work of carrying it off the mountain, they would either: a) Bury it b) Slide it down the glacier into a crevasse. We may have to wait until the Chinese have a perestroika-type opening, whereby they admit long-held facts. Perhaps the 1960 summit rocks are not from the summit. Perhaps have unshared critical info about Irvine. Until then, the mystery will continue, but I doubt they carried Irvine off the mountain (10% chance). More likely, they buried him (30%), pushed him off the mountain (30%), or he's still sitting where he was allegedly seen (30%).

Your hypothesis is solid! The weakness is that nobody has climbed the zig-zag route, and Messner said it was too hard. Messner went in August when it was snow-covered. Perhaps it's easier in June. The absence of any successful attempts on the route serves as a testament to the validity of Messner's claim: the zig-zag route is indeed a formidable challenge. Before this interview & book, I thought there was a 20% chance that Mallory summited. Now, I think it's 80%. I don't know why people don't think he could have climbed Messner's route.

​@ftapon Norton tried the Zig Zag Line, it seems to be the obvious and most direct option for anyone traversing the Yellow Band, under the North Ridge. He found the route feasible, but very dangerous, due to exposure, slippery ground and loose rocks. Norton was alone, so he decided to cross the couloir and try the gully, a safer option. However, this is a more time-consuming line and afterall it became too late for him to go for the summit pyramid. Messner traverse lower in the wall, he was not as close as Norton to have a look at the zig zag area. The australians that climbed the Great Couloir reach the summit area by the gully too. Maybe, nobody went there except Norton, to get a closer look. Thousands of climbers crossed the North Ridge of Everest, but I never heard of one who tried to climb this line. It is more an untried line, not an impossible one. It was one of the three options that Mallory and Irvine had: North Ridge (and Second Step), "Zig Zag" and the gully (crossing the Great Couloir). I don't know which way they followed, but one thing I am sure about: they didn't stay fooling around all day, sitting on rocks and talking about the views. They tried hard to reach the summit, by one of these routes.

@@eduardoprestes1663 I hope you're right. I'm just skeptical about the feasibility of an "untried line." Mountaineers LOVE to claim "first ascents" and new lines. Therefore, why hasn't anyone done the zig-zag line? Maybe it is too difficult. Dr. Edwards suggests the Chinese force people to stay on a narrow path toward the summit. Still, you'd think someone would get a waiver to try the Zig Zag.

​@@ftapon Looking through the early records Frank Smythe in 1933 looks first to have identified Messners route. Hugh Ruttledge and the 1933 climbers communicated with Norton about route possibilities before the expedition. It doesn't appear to be in discussion before 1933. Norton favoured crossing the couloir to the west as high as possible, the steep roof tile slabs there with snow on them were what forced the climbers back. Smythe thought of a theory of entering the couloir low down below the yellow band and then climbing directly up and out the couloir on the west side (Messner and the Aussies route). The position of the camps look to be a factor on this route. Messner, the Aussies both positioned their high camp up in the couloir itself. 1924 camp being on the north ridge. Hugh Ruttledge in Everest 1933: "I would strongly recommend single-minded adherence to Norton's route, which offers a practical certainty of succcss in good conditions. Provided that you can synchronise the arrival of two parties at the top of their form with the absence of snow and three, or preferably four, days of consecutive fine weather, I believe that the summit will be reached by Norton's route. Before leaving this subject I should say something about a theory which Smythe has developed. This is, that the north face can be traversed at a level of about 25,500 feet, the couloir crossed at this height, and a lodgment effected upon the western part of the north face directly below the final pyramid. The face will then have to be climbed more or less directly, up what is undoubtedly steep ground ; but there will be this advantage, that the possibly more dangerous traverse of the upper slabs and the upper couloir will be avoided, and direct access afforded to the western subsidiary couloir leading to the easier slopes of the final pyramid. The difficulty is that, while we know the advantages of Norton's route and the possibility of placing a high camp either where it was placed in 1933 or, better still perhaps, on a snow-slope just below the first step, we cannot know without previous reconnaissance that Smythe's proposed route will " go," or that suitable sites will be found for at least two camps which would be needed on the face ; and a great deal of time would be expended in this reconnaissance." On a side note i think if the zig zag was a viable route the Chinese would have climbed it by now. In 1975 they had a party of four traverse under to the couloir (Nortons line). Days after this they shifted their high camp above the first step near mushroom rock and then went to the trouble of fixing the second step ladder. They had 9 climbers summit with the tripod. I think if the zig zag exists and was any easier than the second step then over the years the Chinese would have gone back and fixed it with rope. They know the area better than anyone.

I agree with your scenario. The only corrections: 1) They were spotted at 12:50 pm, which is "around noon" but I would say "around 1 pm" - that extra hour matters. 2) The weather was NOT good. First, Odell briefly saw them. Clouds covered the summit nearly the whole day. Good weather would mean they had clear visibility. They did not. An AI will provide the other facts regarding the weather: On June 8, 1924, the day George Mallory and Andrew Irvine disappeared during their summit attempt on Mount Everest, the weather conditions were likely treacherous due to a severe storm. Here are the key details: ## Significant Drop in Barometric Pressure Newly analyzed weather data from the 1924 expedition revealed a precipitous drop in barometric pressure in the days leading up to June 8th, indicating the arrival of a powerful storm system.[1][2] The pressure drop at base camp was around 18 millibars, which is considered significant.[4] ## Intense Storm Conditions Near the Summit The barometric pressure drop suggests that Mallory and Irvine likely encountered an intense storm with high winds, heavy snow, and poor visibility as they approached the summit on June 8th.[1][2][4] Such a storm would have made climbing extremely hazardous and difficult to navigate. ## Lack of Oxygen from Low Pressure At Everest's extreme altitude, the air is already severely depleted of oxygen. The additional drop in barometric pressure caused by the storm would have further reduced the oxygen levels, potentially causing hypoxia (lack of oxygen).[1][4] Hypoxia can lead to confusion, impaired judgment, and physical impairment, all of which are dangerous for climbers. While accounts from lower elevations reported only a brief afternoon blizzard on June 8th, the conditions experienced by Mallory and Irvine several thousand feet higher were likely drastically worse due to the elevation difference.[1] In summary, the newly analyzed weather data strongly indicates that Mallory and Irvine faced a powerful storm with life-threatening conditions of high winds, heavy snow, low visibility, and oxygen deprivation near the summit of Everest on the day of their disappearance in 1924.[1][2][4] Citations: [1] www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38639968 [2] www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2010/08/06/129036467/everest [3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_British_Mount_Everest_expedition [4] www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-10854272 [5] www.cnn.com/travel/mallory-disappeared-everest-summit-mystery/index.html

@@ftapon That is a kind of new for me. I thought it was a cloudy and windy afternoon, a quiet and freezing night, followed by a sunny morning. If they face a storm there, then it would be very difficult to endure in that old fashion mountaineering clothes. But Mallory for sure didn't die in a freezing position, he felt and broke a leg, maybe with a head injury too. And he was pretty close to their highest camp, where he and Irvine could had found shelter. The better scenario for them stay the same. They traversed the yellow band under the ridge and reappeared on the only position Odell could saw then "on the ridge", near the thrid step and the citadel. And this would be pretty close to the summit. The other possibilities is that Odell diidn't see them (foolished by some kind of optical illusion) or they went all the way by the ridge, with Odell seeing them climbing the first step (there is an view angle problem with this hypothesis). You say that the storm would blocked the path to the summit. I agree, but I think that if they were low on the ridge, they would had stopped climbing as soon as the storm approched. And if they were low, they could reached the tent in a pair of hours, in a good shape. I believe more in a forced error, by exhaustion or induced by a storm, if there was one. But this could only happened if they went far on the climbing, like Odell reported, and remained out there in the evening and the night.

​@@eduardoprestes1663 As Dr. Roberts states after 4:10, Odell was unlikely fooled by an optical illusion. I'm 70% sure that Mallory made it to the summit despite the worsening weather. As you say, exhaustion and darkness set it on their descent. He was found without his oxygen apparatus, so he probably ran out of oxygen on the descent, so he ditched the apparatus. However, without oxygen, he would have gotten much colder, and he would lose his mental faculties. People suffering from oxygen deprivation make stupid decisions like taking off their gloves. Maybe in his delirium, he left his ice axe behind. He lacked light, oxygen, and warm clothes. He stumbled through a storm, hypothermic, couldn't see, desperate to find his camp. He slipped, broke his leg, smashed his face, and died minutes after coming to a stop. Was Irvine belaying him? Did he cry Mallory's name into the howling wind and hear nothing? Did Irvine hide between rocks with his sleeping bag, freezing to death? It was not sunny the following morning. I was cloudy throughout the day and into the following day. Perplexity writes: The weather on Mount Everest the day after George Mallory and Andrew Irvine disappeared, June 9, 1924, was characterized by a significant drop in barometric pressure and temperature. This drop was likely the result of a meteorological phenomenon known as a Western Disturbance, which triggered a severe blizzard. The barometric pressure at base camp dropped by approximately 18 millibars, which would have exacerbated the hypoxic conditions experienced by climbers at high altitudes[1][2][3][4].

You're probably right that we'll never know, but I wouldn't say "never" until we find Irvine's body. If his body has rocks or photos from the summit, we'll KNOW they made it.

It's still too early to say, "Nobody will ever know for sure, ever." That's why we're still searching for Irvine's body. Perhaps it has a camera or rocks from the summit that offer irrefutable proof that they reached the summit. Until then, I try not to blindly believe things without evidence.

Let me cite Colonel Norton in the 1924 expedition report FIGHT FOR EVEREST, pp.111&112, talking about his & Somervell's summit bid: "...The line we had followed was one roughly parallel to and perhaps 500 to 600 feet below the crest of the Noth-east Aréte; this was the line Somervell and I had always favoured in preference of the actual crest, which Mallory advocated." Here we have another source which tells us that Mallory clearly prefered to climb via the North-east ridge.

@@bluesserenader There are letters that George wrote before the expedition that laid out a case for not climbing the ridge and why he wasn't going to go that route. Also, he told the expedition photographer where to set up his cameras and the two routes he planned on taking depending on the winds/weather and neither one of the were the ridge route.

He wasn't a tourist climber though. Whilst no one wants to die, the objective was to reach the summit. The first person to summit Everest is the first person to Summit Everest. Armstrong would've been the first man on the Moon, whether he survived the journey home or not. The rules are different for "firsts".

@@TheSaxon. True enough. Mallory/Irvine may well have been the first to summit, but my point is that Hillary/Norgay were the first to conquer Everest, because they got back down to tell the tale.

Cliche

Saying this is the same thing as saying Robert Falcon Scott did not reach South Pole 1912 which is absurd.

The quote was said by Mallory son, who must have been bereft of his lonely upbringing without his dad which caused him saying this pessimistic saying.

Thanks for the valuable insight. Lots of misinformation out there!

To add on this aspect: The ice axe was found in 1933. Even today, with so much better equipement, in a lot of reports from climbers, positions are not identified correctly, sometimes even with huge deviations. We should keep this in mind not only when refering to the place where the ice axe was found but also regaring Odells ability to clearly remember when he saw what or who at which place. We know that Odell when askeds about the exact location gave different answers over time (which is absolutely understandable). Regarding Odell and the ice axe: When Odell saw the ice axe back in England, it's reported he saw 3 marks on it. Well spotted. Now I'm asking myself, when he was able to identify these 3 little marks, why he wasn't able to realize it couldn't have been neither Mallorys nor Irvines personal axe as it was too short for both of them. Furthermore, as it is believed today, it was an axe taken from one of the porters as a spare, why didn't Odell mentioned this, since, as a part of the team he must have known that this was a part of the general (not personal) equipement the team brought to the base camp.

@@MA-oj8zk I agree with your two points. 1. Memories are fallible. Remain skeptical. Stay open-minded. 2. The idea that Mallory grabbed a spare ice axe is dubious. Climbers shave every gram. Mallory inventoried his oxygen supply & other items. Why wouldn't he mention a spare ice axe? Pairing your two ideas together: we might question whether the ice axe was found in a place where it's unlikely to have an accident. Perhaps it's unlikely for a normal climber to fall there, but oxygen-deprived climbers who are stumbling in the dark without a light (like Mallory & Irvine might been) do stupid shit.

Then why did he change his mind where he saw them?

@@czarcastic1458 For the same reason you change your mind as to where you last saw your keys. Humans reevaluate their memories, alter them, invent new memories, etc...

Thanks! I hope Peru was as good as Thailand 😉

I used to believe the same thing that you did It makes a ton of sense what you write But in the book the author explains that the ice axe would have to defy the law of physics to be standing where it was found. See the book for the full and compelling explanation.

@@ftapon Defy the laws of physics?? Was it hovering above the ground? I read that it was found lying flat on some fairly horizontal slabs.

@@julianwood6625 In 1933, Wyn Harris said the axe was "lying on the slabs, which are hereabouts inclined at an angle of 35-40 degrees, unsupported by crack or ledge, and dependent on friction alone for its lodgment." Robert Edwards writes in his book, "The proponents of the 'accident' scenario therefore had to believe that the ice axe had fallen from a climber's grasp and had stopped in the same spot, where no protrusion or indentation could arrest it. An object that falls even three feet is moving at 13 feet per second. Yet according to the 'accident' hypothesis, this falling smooth object had stopped on a smooth slab inclined at an angle of 35-40 degrees. In short, the 'accident' scenario defies the laws of physics. More than this, with available data, we cannot say."

@@ftapon Thank you for your response - much appreciated. What if Irvine was pulled along the slabs perpendicular to the incline? Also, he may not even drop it straight away, only after he's being pulled along the slabs himself, with the axe already on the deck. There's lots of possibilities - he could have landed on the axe creating large amounts of friction between the axe and the surface of the slabs. He could have had the axe with the spike in contact with the slabs (like using it as a walking stick) and not had a proper grip on it when he got pulled away - leaving the axe to pivot down onto the slabs and slide down a bit before coming to rest (neither the axe nor the slabs would have been perfectly smooth). From a mountaineering point of view, I reckon there's considerably less than a one percent chance that anybody would leave an ice axe as a marker and, if they somehow did, you'd have to multiply that by the probability that the person leaving it thought it would be sensible to leave it on a smooth slab inclined at 35-40 degrees - so you're talking less than 1 in 1000 at best. Compare that to a big unexpected accident - on rock slabs, he's going to drop that axe or have it ripped from him over 99% of the time.

​@@julianwood6625 I understand your point. You're right that there are scenarios where the axe could have been placed, and the accident occurred seconds later. At 13:40, Dr. Edwards observes that the found ice axe was too short for Irvine. But he also said that Irvine had to buy the ice axe. Maybe the short one was on sale? He was 21. He saw the climb as a "lark." On the other hand, you'd think that's one place you wouldn't want to skimp on. At 14:20, Dr. Edwards suggests that the ice axe belonged to a porter or was a spare. But if so, it would have appeared on their inventory lists. Climbers shave every gram of unnecessary weight. Carrying a heavy axe as a spare seems excessive & unrealistic. Also, using it as a marker seems hard to believe unless it was a spare. But if it was a spare, where did it come from? Why would a porter give up his ice axe? Another option: they ran out of oxygen on the descent. When that happens, climbers get disoriented & irrational. Perhaps Irvine, in the darkness, sat and placed his ice axe next to him while in a state of delirium. When he stood up again, he forgot about his axe and walked like a zombie until he fell or huddled a few meters down, trying to tough out the night. The possibilities are endless. We must find Irvine.

That is a fair point, but every year, "climbing hobbyists" with less experience than Mallory summit Everest without oxygen.

Anatoli Boukreev and his team made the first ascent of the south face of Annapurna I in 1997, but he died in an avalanche during the descent. Would you say his climb doesn't count?

@@ftapon Tracy deals with this argument also.

I keep hearing this argument and it makes no sense to me. So Scott didn't reach the South Pole??

Cliche