ABOUT THAT 100,000

September 26, 2005 | self

[Albertafriend]

Well I was going to put this into some other thread but things have been moving so fast that it is going to be lost and I have been encouraged to give it one of its own. So since this is the first time I've posted like this, I hope I do it all right. I was feeling really frustrated by all the conflicting accounts of how many people were at the anti-war/anti-everything related or not related to Bush protest, that I decided to try to get a closer number based on the picture that came from Reuters of the crowd on the elipse and the sidewalk. I enlarged the picture a bit (about2X) and then printed it off. I divided it into a grid and decided to count, using a very stong magnifying glass,letting each pixel stand for 1-3 people depending on its size. After doing this for a while, I started using my clear ruler that is divided into 1/8 inch squares with about 16 pixels per square. This worked a lot better. So after working on it for a couple of hours, even allowing them that the same numbers could be obscured by the trees near the crowd, and being generous because some of the grays are probably pavement, I reached a grand total of---6749! The top number possible since there are probably some not in the picture would have to be about 10,000. Of course that's 10,000 too many but I"m wondering where are the other 90-93,000 hiding out?

[lexington minuteman 1775]

There was a post the other day on here. One was an overhead of the Elipse where the demonstration was held. And beside it a picture of the Los Angeles Collosium with 93,000 people in it. Obviously by looking at both crowds there was no where near 100,000. And your generous 10k is probably more correct. But the MSM won't report that!

[Always Right]

Of course that's 10,000 too many but I"m wondering where are the other 90-93,000 hiding out?

You forgot to count their dead relatives.

[kidd]

Good work, but I think you misunderstood the statement.

When it was stated that 100,000 were in attendance, I'll bet you thought they were refering tothe number of people. But no. They were refering to brain cells.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Also, don't forget to count the absentees. Democrats can't be expected to show up on the day of the protest, so they need "early protesting" and "absentee protesting".

[js1138]

Surely there are pictures with higher definition available. Unless someone doesn't want an accurate count.

[andie74]

Did you factor in that some of those people were very large?

Must've eaten the rest of them.

[Bon mots]

I am amazed that the MSM still runs the article that 100,000 people were there... It is so obvious to anyone looking at the one distant shot picture that there is no way there was 100,000 people.

Nobody ever mentions how the MSM zooms in really close for Democrat or leftist events to make the crowd seem larger and more in your face, and for Right Wing or Republican events, they zoom way out... almost to satellite range to make it appear small and anonymous.

[digger48]

Even if it wer 100,000, you get more than that at a Nextel Race. And I'd like to see what their opinion on the matter would be.

[Sprite518]

Bingo...

[rockrr]

We've gotten to the point where our "friends" in the MSM sheepishly (with a sly grin and a shrug of the shoulders) admit that they have a liberal bias (they just don't call it that, because they don't think that their liberalism is liberalism).

On the local news yesterday I saw a report on the "big anti-war protest" that attracted 100,000 marchers. The magic number was regurgitated without question. They did acknowledge that there were a few counter-demonstrators ("pro-war" protesters) who gathered a "much smaller" group.

Certainly no bias there!

Even my 11 year old can discern the bias of the MSM/LSM ;'}

I have serious doubts about the ability of this country to survive when so many appear to be so terribly deluded. I can appreciate partisanship, but these people's feet don't touch the ground! Decisions need to be made, but these folks have demonstrated themselves to be incompetent to decide on anything.

God help us!

[texasmountainman]

The other 90,000 were the MSM covering the event.

[Always Right]

This is 100,000 people

This is not even close

[finnman69]

thought of doing this myself, but I could tell that in this pic,

there is NO WAY there are 100,000 in this pic. I guessed less than 10,000.

[Albertafriend]

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate your kind and funny comments, especially the one about Buckhead--what an honor!!! It was worth every minute I spent on it! I can't post the picture but here is the link. It also has some other "crowd" pictures for comparison. Please feel free to use this information far and wide.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491083/posts

[varyouga]

Here's a 1/3 shot of beaver stadium. About 30,000 people. I don't think the DUmmies even had this much.

[Political Junkie Too]

These people were protesting the war against Eastasia. The other 90,000 were still at the protest against the war with Oceania. They didn't get the revised memo in time.

-PJ

[MizSterious]

Excellent research! Thanks for posting this!

[cardinal4]

Good afternoon! I had doubts about the turnout. I was willing to say 10,000 tops. Now Im not so sure. Now if you counted them based on IQ....

[Tennessee_Bob]

Now if you counted them based on IQ....

Well, going on that basis, the crowd was the equivalent of a cockatiel and a small brown dog with mange.

[notpoliticallycorewrecked]

You have all forgotten the MSM uses special factorization standards. For DU and Dems they round up to the nearest 10,000 then nultiply by 10. For those of us in the GOP circles they have a similar factorization. They round down to the nearest 10,000 and divide by 10.