Looks like there's a few on the icefall. Follow the line of garbage, then up and across the fall. The only hard part is dealing with the inverted mouse movement on the interface. Why would they do that???
1. Of the 3 mountains, look at the peak of the center one (Lhotse).
2. Below that, the right half is big chunky snow, and the left half is smooth, icey looking snow.
3. Look at the line where the smooth left half meets the chunky right half. - Halfway up that you can find CAMP 3. [You'll see little ant people marching up that centerline - follow them to their tents.]
Also once you see CAMP 3, you actually see tracks in the snow. There's a manmade line going diagonally up/left across the center mountain, up the rock face, and then continues up/left to the little snow valley where Everest hits Lhotse along the horizon line. I suppose somewhere around there is CAMP 4.
You can also see a small tent city at the base of the on the grey part net to the ice flow at the bottom left of the. And some buildings on the right side of the image. But oddly no real roads, so I guess it's all air lifted in, or mule trains.
Nearest road to Kathmandu was (for me, in 2001) a 14-day walk. The airport at Lukla is about 7 days. Everything comes in by porter or by yak train. It's nearly 18,000 feet altitude. The mountain goes straight up another 2 miles vertical. This panorama is fantastic, but realize it's on extreme wide angle, almost fish-eye. The mountain seems to take up the whole sky.
Climber fatality from attempts through 2006:
Suicide estimate from NIH:
Actually, Everest is considered as on the easier side for an eight-thousander . Annapurna got %38 (2007 figures)  and K2 got %25 .
For some interesting discussion on Everest fatalities, try this one . "No shortcuts to the top" by Ed Viesturs and the well known "Into thin air" by Jon Krakauer are two good books on the subject, if you want to read more.
Yup, I've read that. The account by the reporter from Outdoors (?) was extremely graphic in detail (but disputed by others in the party). Sad all around, but through those deaths came better regulation which has led to a 1:7 ration of attempts/deaths vs. 1:4 in previous years.
This is very good visualization. It brings out the fact that number of summits have exponentially increased by number of death only linearly and with very slight slop. This means w have gotten exponentially better at summiting over time.
The best way for you, as a mere mortal, and not some semi-suicidal mountaineer to experience big mountains is to take the bus from Santiago,Chile to Mendoza, Argentina. The trip through the Andes is really awesome. Sometimes you'll see a mountain and have no idea how big it is and then at the very bottom you can just barely make out some ant size cows grazing. Looking down at the bottom of some of the switchbacks on that route is like looking out an airplane window.
There are really an absurd number of people "climbing" it - literally, my sexagenarian neighbour told me that "some of the girls from my tennis club are doing it". It really nullifies the whole mystique of Everest of any meaning whatsoever, and is having a terrible effect on the natural beauty of the terrain.
(I'm not some mountaineering snob - I tire climbing hills for a decent toboggan run)
What is the point of 'natural beauty' if there's no-one to appreciate it? There's all sorts of reasons to preserve wilderness, but 'keeping it looking pretty' as a reason to prevent travellers is not one of them.
Not sure if you fully realize the scope with which it's turning into a sort of Disneyland - people are climbing it in an endless convoy. I find it quite shocking. If you do, then I guess we just fundamentally disagree.
This is a dead thread, more or less, but I'm a bit embarrassed about this. For posterity:
The footage I've seen was indeed from (and up to) the basecamp. I was quite shocked at what I saw, but I obviously misremembered exactly what it was - the trail to the basecamp. I certainly did not think all those people were reaching the summit, but I did think they were going higher.
I feel like a bit of an idiot, and needed to get that off my chest.
They walk up that thing, its called Khumbu icefall. Basically the valley glacier spilling out in slow motion. Its incredibly dangerous (as you probably surmise), even though its at the bottom. Since the ice is all cracked up, many people fall into the cracks. Believe the local sherpas do most of the work each year to find a safe route through that mess.
I think it's just an artifact of pre-tablet era interaction design (not that this software was actually written all that long ago).
Nowadays it seems perfectly reasonable to imagine clicking and dragging the image around in order to pan -- I'm not confident that particular interaction would have even occurred to a lot of people a few years ago, though.
I would say: Pre Google Maps era. I find it perfectly intuitive to click and drag most online maps around, but it might have been weird the first time I encountered it.
For example, I still like to scroll down to go down in a web page, and get confused (and frustrated?) when I use the new mac mice which use the touch-screen/map type scrolling. However I'm quite sure that if I was a mac person, I'd get used to it fairly quickly.
Actually the controls are "non-inverted", pull down to look down. Inverted is when you pull down to look up. Non-inverted is now very popular. Most first person shooter games that ship today have non-inverted as the default. I generally find people about my age and older (30 somethings) prefer inverted, but younger people vastly prefer non-inverted.