REO SpeedDealer
Member
- 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.
Umm... you are aware that photoshopping is different from grabbing a file photo??
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...
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.
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.
There...that's better. See how easy it is to be honest.
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.
Irrelevant. The DC fire quote was from after the rally...note that DC fire didn't amend their estimate.
It remains their "unofficial" estimate.
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.
If you had read my posts together, you would have seen exactly what I referring to -- which I said up front. This is weak.
I was completely honest.
Did I say it wasn't? No. In fact, I specifically said exactly that in an earlier post.
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.
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.
You are either being dishonest or incompetent again, because I already addressed that in my post (#403) above.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
No....you were not. You were trying to diminish the credibility of the DC fire dept spokesman.
And you were busted. :mrgreen:
Really? Really?
Where?
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
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.
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!
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.
Wow...aren't you guys uncomfortable with all those numbers stuck up your rectum? :mrgreen:
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:
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?