• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tens of thousands attend broad protest of government in nation's capital

Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
56
Reaction score
10
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I looked at the videos and pictures (not the one that was shown to be fake) and made my determination that around the 500k mark is at least a reasonable estimate.
And the source of your expertise is....?

Sorry but I'm not impressed by your numbers; even if you did go to such great lengths as to pull them one by one out of your ass.:mrgreen:

Umm... you are aware that photoshopping is different from grabbing a file photo??
Of course....my point was that if the event organizers didn't care if they were busted for passing off file photos of other rallies, why would they care if they were busted for passing off badly photoshopped photos of the actual event.

They were probably asked to estimate the crowd around the stage... which DOES seem to be around the 60-70k range... but there's no way that the video is that small of a crowd...
LOL....so the media in essence said "we don't care how many people are attending this event; we just want to know how many are gathered around the stage".

You're just being silly now.

Smoke another one.... or drop your partisan bias for long enough to take an objective look, one or the other is blocking you from seeing reality.
Let's see...my amateur estimate is pretty much in line with virtually any credible media source as well as the DC authorities.

Your estimate is a delusional 10 times that. And you accuse me of a partisan bias. :mrgreen:
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I did. Here's what you said:

"Which he says was "in no way official," and was given before the crowd filled the Capitol grounds, which he described as filling an area which holds 240,000."

The DC fire spokesman never described the Capital grounds as an area that could hold 240k.
If you had read my posts together, you would have seen exactly what I referring to -- which I said up front. This is weak.


There...that's better. See how easy it is to be honest. ;)
I was completely honest. You're being dishonest (or incompetent) in interpreting what I wrote.


The USA Today piece also states that crowd estimates are dependent on crowd density. The 240k figure appears to have been specifically slated for the ticketed seating of the Obama inauguration.
Did I say it wasn't? No. In fact, I specifically said exactly that in an earlier post.


Irrelevant. The DC fire quote was from after the rally...note that DC fire didn't amend their estimate.
No, it wasn't. :roll: They were quoting it on TV before 11 am that day.

And this ABC news article refers to a tweet from 11:43 am, after the "estimate" was out there and even referred back for confirmation.

DC ?Tea Party? Crowd Estimate: How Did Thousands Become Millions? - The World Newser


It remains their "unofficial" estimate.
Yes. Quite unofficial, one that the guy who provided insists is "unofficial." Doesn't sound like he's standing behind it terribly forecefully. Far less so than you are.

But the point is, you can cling like a puppy all you want to the lowest number possible, but photographic evidence, and the eyewitness description of the very guy who came up with the number, points to a number much higher.

So, why are you so invested in keeping the number as small as possible? Hmmm? You guys are saying it makes "our side" look bad by trying to inflate the numbers, but if you're hell-bent on insisting it was lower than it was, it makes "your side" look equally pathetic, and more than a little desperate.


Not even. The 240k area in the USA Today map shows densely packed ticketed seating all the way to 4th St. The sparse crowd in your photo barely makes it to 3rd St.
You are either being dishonest or incompetent again, because I already addressed that in my post (#403) above.

Besides, the crowd pack goes back to 3rd street, and there's still a large mass on PA Ave, as well as people lining the edges of the Mall going at least a few more streets back.

Given the photographic evidence of the area the crowd covered, and the estimates of those areas' capacities cited in neutral sources, it appears to me that the crowd numbered at least 200,000. This seems entirely reasonable to me.

But you keep clinging to your lowest number if it makes you feel better. For whatever reason it makes you feel better. :roll:
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
56
Reaction score
10
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you had read my posts together, you would have seen exactly what I referring to -- which I said up front. This is weak.
Hmmm...so in order to understand your point I'm supposed to read your posts "together"? And read between the lines as well presumably. Are there any secret codes I should be aware of?

Thanx for the heads up.

I was completely honest.
No....you were not. You were trying to diminish the credibility of the DC fire dept spokesman.

And you were busted. :mrgreen:

Did I say it wasn't? No. In fact, I specifically said exactly that in an earlier post.
Really? Really?

Where?

They were quoting it on TV before 11 am that day.

And this ABC news article refers to a tweet from 11:43 am, after the "estimate" was out there and even referred back for confirmation.
The quote I was referring to was:

"But the day of the rally, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up.
“It was in no way an official estimate,” he said.
We asked Piringer whether there were enough protesters to fill the National Mall, as depicted in the photograph.
“It was an impressive crowd,” he said. But after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, the crowd “only filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street,” he said."

PolitiFact | "Tea party" photo shows huge crowd ? at different event

Note that Piringer is speaking in the past tense. And yet he still stands by the DC fire estimate of 60-75k.

But the point is, you can cling like a puppy all you want to the lowest number possible, but photographic evidence, and the eyewitness description of the very guy who came up with the number, points to a number much higher.
Nonsense...the "eyewitness description" points to a small crowd that barely extends to 3rd St.

You are either being dishonest or incompetent again, because I already addressed that in my post (#403) above.
No you didn't. This is what I said:

"The 240k area in the USA Today map shows densely packed ticketed seating all the way to 4th St."

Where have you ever addressed the fact that the estimate of 240k is specifically tied to densely packed seating that extends all the way to 4th St.? In fact...this is what you said:

"The Capitol Grounds up to Third Street represents the area in the USA Today article I linked to in the last post as the 240,000 area"

Liar!

Given the photographic evidence of the area the crowd covered, and the estimates of those areas' capacities cited in neutral sources, it appears to me that the crowd numbered at least 200,000. This seems entirely reasonable to me.
Wow...aren't you guys uncomfortable with all those numbers stuck up your rectum? :mrgreen:
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And the source of your expertise is....?
AGAIN... life experience is not 'expertise' but a generalized skillset... I'm not even caliming a set number of people there... just that both sides are being retards, 60k and 2 million are both EXTREME over and under...

That's why even my estimate is such a large margin... To say that the video didn't even show enough to fill an average stadium of seats is laughable. I'm sorry.

Sorry but I'm not impressed by your numbers; even if you did go to such great lengths as to pull them one by one out of your ass.:mrgreen:
I'm not spitting out numbers like I was trying to whip it out for you... get a grip. I have no vested interest one way or the other, although my opinions are in line with much of the views represented at the march (that being the message of small government, no more bailouts, real representation, etc).

The video was pretty clear that the march stretched out for 6-7 blocks and took up 4 lanes and 2 sidewalks that whole way, and looked like had people pouring into the cross streets as well...



Of course....my point was that if the event organizers didn't care if they were busted for passing off file photos of other rallies, why would they care if they were busted for passing off badly photoshopped photos of the actual event.
Were they REALLY believers in their own cause to do something so blatantly to damage that cause?? I could give you 5 precedences of 'agents provocateurs' acting in ways to discredit legitimate protest.

LOL....so the media in essence said "we don't care how many people are attending this event; we just want to know how many are gathered around the stage".

You're just being silly now.
It's not silly when you consider how much money is at risk over this movement taking popular hold over the minds of the majority... not only would it stall Obama's agenda, but many corporations have alot at risk to get his agenda's through.

But no... all those lobbyists that Obama hired on do't have any vested interests in getting Obama's plan to be successful.

Let's see...my amateur estimate is pretty much in line with virtually any credible media source as well as the DC authorities.
Funny how the only 'credible sources' are the ones that agree with you... when even the pictures show a vast number of people present.

Your estimate is a delusional 10 times that. And you accuse me of a partisan bias. :mrgreen:
No, Glen Becks idea that it was 2 million, AS WELL AS the NYT estimate of 'thousands' are BOTH delusional and go against what can be plainly seen in the film and photos that day.I'm not trying to 'over-inflate' anything... just trying to be realistic
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hmmm...so in order to understand your point I'm supposed to read your posts "together"? And read between the lines as well presumably. Are there any secret codes I should be aware of?

Thanx for the heads up.
Considering the one post built on what was already posted in another, and that it's a common part of what we call "conversation," yes.

This is simply dishonest, anyway; you already know that.



No....you were not. You were trying to diminish the credibility of the DC fire dept spokesman.

And you were busted. :mrgreen:
Where? :roll: I took his words at face value. It's you who dismiss it when it puts your favored number in doubt.

Again, why do you have the psychological need to diminish this crowd?


Really? Really?

Where?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rnment-nations-capital-40.html#post1058263465

Wherein, I said:

Where the "240,000" number comes from is probably the number of tickets given out for the Obama Inauguration.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - National Mall to be open for Obama inauguration - Blogs from CNN.com

You appear to consider "reading' a fishing expedition for only those things you want to find.


The quote I was referring to was:

"But the day of the rally, Piringer unofficially told one reporter that he thought between 60,000 and 75,000 people had shown up.
“It was in no way an official estimate,” he said.
We asked Piringer whether there were enough protesters to fill the National Mall, as depicted in the photograph.
“It was an impressive crowd,” he said. But after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, the crowd “only filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street,” he said."

PolitiFact | "Tea party" photo shows huge crowd ? at different event

Note that Piringer is speaking in the past tense. And yet he still stands by the DC fire estimate of 60-75k.
Piringer speaks for himself and I think it's pretty obvious what he's saying. People without blinders can pretty much determine that for themselves.



Nonsense...the "eyewitness description" points to a small crowd that barely extends to 3rd St.

No you didn't. This is what I said:

"The 240k area in the USA Today map shows densely packed ticketed seating all the way to 4th St."

Where have you ever addressed the fact that the estimate of 240k is specifically tied to densely packed seating that extends all the way to 4th St.? In fact...this is what you said:

"The Capitol Grounds up to Third Street represents the area in the USA Today article I linked to in the last post as the 240,000 area"

Liar!
I told you, post #403, above:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rnment-nations-capital-41.html#post1058263512

though on that map, the 240,000 area contained the first segment of the Mall beyond Third St. HOWEVER, it also had the grounds around Grant's Tomb -- roughly the same size as that segment -- as empty, but the 912 crowd filled it. Area-wise, that's a wash; so the estimate for the area Piringer says the crowd filled is ~ 240K by the USA Today article methodology.
If you actually read the post (which you must have, considering you quoted from it), then you are an egregious liar yourself for not acknowledging this.

Which proves beyond a doubt that it's pointless to engage you; you have no intention to conduct an honest debate.

Anyone can see that, I'd think.


Wow...aren't you guys uncomfortable with all those numbers stuck up your rectum? :mrgreen:
I gave my methodology, plain as day. I will take this as acknowledgment that you can't or won't refute it. QED. Seeing as you've got nothing, we're done here.
 

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
1,959
Location
at the computer
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
Originally Posted by katiegrrl0
seems like just another right wing circle jerk to me. that is why the reporting is sparse.
You want us to take your concerns seriously, yet you blow off and demean ours. :roll:
not at all. i think it would be good if the right would express a serious dialogue with the left and the centrist populace. it seems as if the US needs to take a hard look at the two party system. i think the voters need to start looking at the incumbents that they keep electing. and give some serious thought to voting for the politicians that you all keep complaining about. i think when the liberals (i am one) do the same silly circle jerk things it is just as dumb. until the American public realizes that the mental masturbation that is their politics changes at the core both sides will suffer.

conservatives are not all wrong. liberals are not all wrong. centrists are not all wrong either. nor are any of them all correct. your major parties are all corupt and focused only on getting reelected. the voters put these back into office at alarming rates.

maybe i needed to express this better in my first statement.

the problems lie on both sides. it is not just one.
 
E

efialtis

There is a big problem on BOTH sides here, there is a serious :spin: on the actual numbers.
On the Left side, you have the desire to DUMB DOWN the numbers...
Why?
The LEFT will not want to admit that there is any "real opposition" to their policies. They want to be able to ignore it, they want to be able to hide from the truth that there are people out there, a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT number of people.
On the Right side, you have the desire to INFLATE the numbers...
Why?
The RIGHT wants to show that there is opposition. That there are people willing to stand up and say something against the current administration. They are also afraid that the Left will DumbDown the numbers and make it seem less significant than it was.

The smart thing to do is take a look at past events and known information...much of which has already been posted on the web, and even in this forum.
The Stage, the front of the mall, the streets on the sides, Official Estimates (of which there are none) and unofficial estimates (of which there are many)...and you get the feeling that there were prolly between 150,000 people and 500,000 people...
Those up front, and out back, and down both boulevards from front to back, and off to the side in the rear areas where groups had also gathered.
If you count them all up, and compare these photos with things like the inauguration, million mom march, promise keepers, etc, and you have the official (or some what official) numbers from those gatherings, you might get an understanding of the number as I estimate it...

And, if you like, you could take my last bit of wisdom with you, when you are in the middle of these kinds of crowds, you will tend to estimate FEWER bay a large margin (by about 2/3rds). Why? Because you are only seeing a fraction of the people. It would have taken someone in a helicopter to determine a better estimate.

Now my next question... I know there is software out there that can count bodies in video...it is used in Florida and Great Britain...so why doesn't someone just run the video thought the software and get a machine count of the estimate?
 

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
69,451
Reaction score
15,335
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I think if everyone who attended could provide their long form birth certificates we could put this matter to rest. :lol:

Jeez, people, is the number really important. A lot of people showed up. It was significant enough.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think if everyone who attended could provide their long form birth certificates we could put this matter to rest. :lol:

Jeez, people, is the number really important. A lot of people showed up. It was significant enough.
And scared hell out of the Democrats in Congress.... Barry probably had to change his short too. :mrgreen:
 
Top Bottom