Posted on 10/18/2008 11:57:59 AM PDT by hole_n_one
Because I just got it in e-mail today:) It’s a keeper, huh!
You’re a troll.
He’s there for a doctored photo of St. Louis, a photo-op to make a crowd of 2000 look like a crowd of 100,000.
From now on that's how I'll refer to him: Bill Ayers' friend, Barack. I encourage others to do the same. It's a not too subtle reminder who he pals around with. :)
I don't think so. I have photos roughly from that angle from when I lived up there and took reference shots on those grounds, though I was using a different lens. You can't see the road in mine, either. By the time you get to this spot from the Poplar Street bridge, you've already gotten off the offramp and are on a rather low road headed north towards the handsome Eads Bridge. There wouldn't be any road visible in this picture because the rise the crowd is on blocks the view west. The road would pass just behind the Catholic Old Cathedral on the left side of the photo but behind and below the rise under which the westward expansion museum was built.
The trees go up over the rise but you can see where they end short of the road unseen on the other side. The reflecting pools are on the other side of and well below the trees on either side and they, too, cannot be seen from that angle either.
I remember those trees were planted using a helicopter because the ground was so soggy they feared heavy equipment would ruin the turf and grounds. The arch is built on a bluff where some big Mississippian temple mounds used to be; beneath this spot is the museum. You can see the shadow of the south leg of the arch crossing the crowd; the arch is only 630 feet high so that shadow doesn't go too far this time of day and that gives a better idea of the depth of the crowd than the photo. The tightly packed crowd, while it looks big, is really quite small relative to the entire grounds or relative to what you would see for the VP celebrations which would be ten times that number or more and spread well beyond the boudaries of this photo into Laclede's Landing to the north and to the Poplar street Bridge to the south.
This crowd looks like it fits within the footprint of the museum below. Since the arch's legs are, as I recall, 630 feet apart [the same as its height] that means the crowd fits roughly within that space, so figure how many people you can cram into a 630 ft square. Allowing a square yard to each person you could get 44,000 + people there but they clearly look to be much closer together than that, say a minimum of 2 people per square yard or 88,000 on the low end.
This photo was probably taken with a wide angle lens, which will make distances look more distant than they are but which will tend to enhance crowd scenes without the user having to back up too far.
This is scary!
I wonder if the folks behind this would also like to elimanate the Senate which basically affords the smaller states the same protection against the heavier populated ones as the Electoral College does?
I know! I had somehow missed this until Calpernia posted it another thread this past week. She said it had been discussed a bit here, back at the beginning of the year, but kind of flickered out : \
We are in a tight spot.
Gawds, people, don’t panic that a predominately AA city near the Illinois border got a lot of bots to attend.
It is stated that as of February 25 of this year, it is in the Second Readers. I had to google three ways from Friday to get information on what that meant : \
Here in Georgia, I found out that bills do not get voted on until after the 3rd reading. I am hoping that the fact that it has yet to have progressed beyond 2nd reading since February, means that it met to considerable resistance. Fingers crossed until I contact my reps to make sure.
bump!
The only problem with that argument is that if you look at the photo on post 100, the vast majority of people are white not black. Easily.
While I agree that this is a stunt meant to shock the nation to believe Obama is 'inevitable' (he is not), FReepers at the same time need to take it seriously. Obama has a lot of supporters, and that support is not just limited to ghettos or (as some are saying) people being 'bussed in.' The pictures are also not shopped. Oh, and there was no free liquor being given.
The faster people come to their senses and start using logic instead of self-delusion, the better it will be for us. The facts are as follows: Obama is a major threat, and he could win the presidency. His support is not just from some African-Americans living in poor-town America ....if it was that he would just be another Jesse Jackson trying to run for POTUS. His support is large, and he is formidable and could win the presidency. However, it is not inevitable, and McCain could still get it. The race is still a statistical dead-heat no matter what the polls say. However, we only have 2 weeks left and people need to get serious. The only way to win is not to mope and say photos are fake ....it will be to ensure that voting turnout is large and people keep their senses. Anything else apart from that is an Obama win.
The photos were a stunt, and they have worked quite well. Let our stunt be at the voting booth.
Anyways, back to your statement ....look at the picture in post 100 and tell me how many black people you see relative to white people? Unless the black people painted their faces white.
All that being said, you are correct that Obama has a great deal of support. Even in my red county in the far exurbs of DC, I see plenty of home made signs for Obama. He does have significant support. Yes, he could win the presidency, and I for one have been working in the Virginia campaing for McCain/Palin, hoping, praying every day that McCain wins. But not every answer to prayer is a yes.
Obama handlers put the black people in the back and white people up front. Its a well known Obama strategy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.