New information is constantly being added to the articles. See the last update date for each article.
It is common knowledge that the Marco Aurélio Case had its searches ended and, some time later, the investigations ceased, with the consequent archiving of the case on April 8, 1990. On March 10, 2005, the files were unarchived for a study conducted by Rodrigo Nunes, from whose work three books emerged: Operação Marins: O sumiço do escoteiro Marco Aurélio (Operation Marins: The disappearance of scout Marco Aurélio), Operação Marins 2: Novas descobertas (Operation Marins 2: New Discoveries), and Operação Marins: desaparecimento do escoteiro Marco Aurélio: 30 anos de mistério (Operation Marins: disappearance of scout Marco Aurélio: 30 years of mystery) (this last one being a combination of the first two works).
The books were extremely important in preserving the story, especially among mountaineering enthusiasts.
<Photo obtained from https://g1.globo.com/sp/vale-do-paraiba-regiao/noticia/2021/07/19/autor-de-trilogia-sobre-escoteiro-desaparecido-diz-acreditar-em-hipotese-de-que-marco-aurelio-esteja-vivo.ghtml, the author interviewed family members and witnesses of the case during 16 years of research on the disappearance — Photo: Personal Archive>
Images of the first two editions of journalist Rodrigo Nunes' book:
There are criticisms that Rodrigo Nunes fictionalized the story too much. I believe the books made the case palatable. If it weren't for these books, there wouldn't be so many mountaineering enthusiasts interested in the case. Dealing with the same subject, in a cold and objective manner, for over 30 years, would be tedious for the general public. It is the books, and the legends told at the foot of the mountain, that perpetuate the case. Newspaper headlines are immediate and always looking for something new to show.
{youtube}https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyiplZ5qXNM{/youtube}
References: Rodrigo Nunes' YouTube channel.
Rodrigo Nunes' Sin.
Rodrigo's "flaw" was putting an intriguing point of the legend on paper.
The canonical story states that the summit attack was canceled because one of the youths got injured, but that in Piquete, a doctor would have stated that the young Osvaldo did not appear to have been injured.
As I will discuss later, a doctor would not be able to diagnose an injury of this nature by simply "looking," let alone quantify someone's pain.
But Rodrigo Nunes, by recording this fact in his book, only sought to capture all the elements that made the case so attractive to the public. This fact was not invented by Rodrigo; it is a known and notorious fact that the Piquete doctor acted irresponsibly in a diagnosis.
Rodrigo has already explained himself about this in interviews found on YouTube.
It is important to register that the Marco Aurélio Case is so attractive to the public due to the series of events that — in people's minds — can be interpreted as suspicious and malicious.
It was not Rodrigo Nunes who invented the "strange story." The facts, as they are presented, are excessively suspicious on their own merit. And it is the legend that travels by word of mouth from one mountaineer to another at the foot of the Peak.
New information is constantly being added to the articles. See the last update date for each article.
It is common knowledge that the Marco Aurélio Case had its searches ended and, some time later, the investigations ceased, with the consequent archiving of the case on April 8, 1990. On March 10, 2005, the files were unarchived for a study conducted by Rodrigo Nunes, from whose work three books emerged: Operação Marins: O sumiço do escoteiro Marco Aurélio (Operation Marins: The disappearance of scout Marco Aurélio), Operação Marins 2: Novas descobertas (Operation Marins 2: New Discoveries), and Operação Marins: desaparecimento do escoteiro Marco Aurélio: 30 anos de mistério (Operation Marins: disappearance of scout Marco Aurélio: 30 years of mystery) (this last one being a combination of the first two works).
The books were extremely important in preserving the story, especially among mountaineering enthusiasts.
<Photo obtained from https://g1.globo.com/sp/vale-do-paraiba-regiao/noticia/2021/07/19/autor-de-trilogia-sobre-escoteiro-desaparecido-diz-acreditar-em-hipotese-de-que-marco-aurelio-esteja-vivo.ghtml, the author interviewed family members and witnesses of the case during 16 years of research on the disappearance — Photo: Personal Archive>
Images of the first two editions of journalist Rodrigo Nunes' book:
There are criticisms that Rodrigo Nunes fictionalized the story too much. I believe the books made the case palatable. If it weren't for these books, there wouldn't be so many mountaineering enthusiasts interested in the case. Dealing with the same subject, in a cold and objective manner, for over 30 years, would be tedious for the general public. It is the books, and the legends told at the foot of the mountain, that perpetuate the case. Newspaper headlines are immediate and always looking for something new to show.
{youtube}https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyiplZ5qXNM{/youtube}
References: Rodrigo Nunes' YouTube channel.
Rodrigo Nunes' Sin.
Rodrigo's "flaw" was putting an intriguing point of the legend on paper.
The canonical story states that the summit attack was canceled because one of the youths got injured, but that in Piquete, a doctor would have stated that the young Osvaldo did not appear to have been injured.
As I will discuss later, a doctor would not be able to diagnose an injury of this nature by simply "looking," let alone quantify someone's pain.
But Rodrigo Nunes, by recording this fact in his book, only sought to capture all the elements that made the case so attractive to the public. This fact was not invented by Rodrigo; it is a known and notorious fact that the Piquete doctor acted irresponsibly in a diagnosis.
Rodrigo has already explained himself about this in interviews found on YouTube.
It is important to register that the Marco Aurélio Case is so attractive to the public due to the series of events that — in people's minds — can be interpreted as suspicious and malicious.
It was not Rodrigo Nunes who invented the "strange story." The facts, as they are presented, are excessively suspicious on their own merit. And it is the legend that travels by word of mouth from one mountaineer to another at the foot of the Peak.
