Showdown in Washington, D.C.

[BeAChooser]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014993-503544.html

http://stevedoig.com/

Neither of those links contains the high resolutions photos used in CBS's analysis. Those images are far less detailed than the many I have linked. Nor do they show the precise details of CBS' analysis (i.e., how many people were found to be located in each area in those images) and the assumptions they used in each area. If you wish to defend the CBS result, you are going to have to do better than that.

 

[Spindrift]

Neither of those links contains the high resolutions photos used in CBS's analysis. Those images are far less detailed than the many I have linked. Nor do they show the precise details of CBS' analysis (i.e., how many people were found to be located in each area in those images) and the assumptions they used in each area. If you wish to defend the CBS result, you are going to have to do better than that.

As was explained earlier the photos are the property of airphotoslive. You have to pay for them and rightly so. Are you contending that they would not be more detailed than the thumbnails published?

Doig explains how he came up with his estimation. I don't expect to have precise details to what is proprietary information for which he gets paid. He gave a general description and it's valid.

However, since you're not satisfied with that. How about the estimation from the Daily Kos? They gave precise details and came up with a much lower number.

 

[BeAChooser]

Well, it isn't the actual CBS methodology, but it does lay out a good way to think about counting the numbers...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/29/897319/-Beck-rally-crowd-size-by-the-numbers

Many of the assumptions used in this link's calculations are clearly wrong. For example, it states:

On the south side of the pool, people were generally gathered in an area no more than about 300 feet wide and on the north side of the pool they were gathered in an area about 150 feet wide.

This is patently false. As I've pointed out in posts above, one can clearly see large crowds of people extending upwards of 400 feet out on both sides of the pool the entire length of the pool.

But as far as methodology is concerned, that is in fact the methodology I used ... making an estimate of density in various areas based on what we can see in wide area and close up pictures of the event. And with that in mind I return to my calculation of 81,000 people in the region on both sides of the pool between the pool and the nearest trees. That calculation alone, which I think is the most accurate of the calculations I made because the crowd and it's density is most clearly visible in that region, proves the CBS' calculation is patently ridiculous. There are far more than 86,000 people present. Given that, why can't any of you folks bring yourself to at least admit that CBS is wrong?

 

[Biscuit]

What is wrong with the method used by the NPS official even if it is off the record? He knows as much about the area the crowd was assembled at as airphotoslive. CBS's estimate is no more official than the NPS official.

Its an estimate given to us 3rd hand from an anonymous source. Was this NPS employee a ranger? A volunteer? How long had they worked there? Do they have experience in crowd size estimation? Lots of questions we can't answer about this source but clearly they should be given as much weight as a commissioned study done by professionals in the field of estimating crowd size.

BaC - I am not even going to go into your tree size estimations and belief that 87K people would be gathered at the mall and not a single toilet would be available (especially with the amount of poo Beck creates.) I will show you what appears to be nearly the entire crowd seated in lawn chairs like a day at the beach!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/29/wildly-conflicting-reports-about-beck-rally-crowd-size/

They don't look very cramped to me.

EDIT: Also this link confirms three experts were used to estimate the crowd size. The all used both 2 and 3D imagery and each had their own method. They used all three and found an average and an estimated margin of error. BOOM!

 

[mhaze]

Okay, show your work, please. If it only took you two minutes to calculate, it should be no problem for you to lay out the entire set of calculations here.

Why should I? Think about it. I didn't spend that two minutes to prove anything to anybody, and I'm confident that anyone who wanted could rapidly replicate the work. That arguments are made to the contrary here is proof of the point I made earlier, that this is all purposeful obfuscation.

Sorry to be cruelly blunt about it, but when progressives drag out a ridiculous discussion and steadfastly refer to CBS's source as "the experts" when what we are talking about is two minutes of work at an approximate 8th grade math level...

call me unimpressed.

 

[BeAChooser]

As was explained earlier the photos are the property of airphotoslive. You have to pay for them and rightly so.

Then in other words, you really don't know whether CBS and it's so-called experts have been dishonest. We do know that in the past CBS and it's experts have been dishonest. So why not this time?

Are you contending that they would not be more detailed than the thumbnails published?

Of course they would. Which is why, I think, CBS has chosen not to post the photos they had airphotoslive make and therefore own. Because it would show standing room only around the entire periphery of the reflecting pool which would prove that the CBS estimate is a crock (as I've proven anyway using other available images).

Doig explains how he came up with his estimation. I don't expect to have precise details to what is proprietary information for which he gets paid. He gave a general description and it's valid.

That's not the way real scientists work. They should be able to provide enough details to give one faith their method is correct. Doig said his estimate of the Obama crowd was 800,000, more than 2 times smaller than the 1.8 million estimate agreed on by a host of other entitities. Given that, aren't you at least willing to admit that the the CBS' estimate might be off by the same factor ... in which case it would agree with mine?

However, since you're not satisfied with that. How about the estimation from the Daily Kos?

See my comment in the previous post. And why don't you address my specific observations and calculations for the region right next to the reflecting pool? You seem to be running from that.

 

[Spindrift]

Then in other words, you really don't know whether CBS and it's so-called experts have been dishonest. We do know that in the past CBS and it's experts have been dishonest. So why not this time?

In other words you don't have any reason to discount CBS other than something that happened 6 years ago for which CBS apologized and fired people over?

Of course they would. Which is why, I think, CBS has chosen not to post the photos they had airphotoslive make and therefore own. Because it would show standing room only around the entire periphery of the reflecting pool which would prove that the CBS estimate is a crock (as I've proven anyway using other available images).

I don't know that CBS owns the originals. What proof do you have that they do? They commissioned APL to do the crowd count and APL used their own photos to do that. That does not automatically transfer ownership.

That's not the way real scientists work. They should be able to provide enough details to give one faith their method is correct. Doig said his estimate of the Obama crowd was 800,000, more than 2 times smaller than the 1.8 million estimate agreed on by a host of other entitities. Given that, aren't you at least willing to admit that the the CBS' estimate might be off by the same factor ... in which case it would agree with mine?

He's a professor of journalism, not a scientist, but he does have expertise in crowd counting. Okay, so I agree that Doig's estimates can differ by a factor of two over some wild guesses. And since Doig actually has a background in crowd counting, I will go with him. So your guess being twice as big as his, fits with him being right, again.

See my comment in the previous post. And why don't you address my specific observations and calculations for the region right next to the reflecting pool? You seem to be running from that.

You overestimate the size of the area and the density of the crowd. I don't know what you are looking at but the crowd thins out greatly as you go away from the Lincoln Memorial. Just look at all the green grass you can see.

 

[Spindrift]

Why should I? Think about it. I didn't spend that two minutes to prove anything to anybody, and I'm confident that anyone who wanted could rapidly replicate the work. That arguments are made to the contrary here is proof of the point I made earlier, that this is all purposeful obfuscation.

Sorry to be cruelly blunt about it, but when progressives drag out a ridiculous discussion and steadfastly refer to CBS's source as "the experts" when what we are talking about is two minutes of work at an approximate 8th grade math level...

call me unimpressed.

If you "didn't spend that two minutes to prove anything to anybody", then why did you do it in the first place?

Lacking proof on your part the assumption is that you couldn't and/or didn't make any such calculations.

 

[Ladewig]

"It's actually fairly simple math, getting the square footage and dividing that by some number of feet per person. A scary mosh pit is 2.5 square feet per person. That's about as tight as you can pack people, where they can't move--elevator tight.

If people up and down the Mall were crammed that tight, there could have been 2 million."

Steve Doig, a journalism professor at Arizona State University

Oh My God! Tell me you are joking, please tell me you are joking!

Not only is the quote from a story on the Obama inauguration, the estimate the Professor Doig came up with for that event was 800,000. The 2,000,000 number comes from his hypothesizing how many people would fit between the Capitol and the Washington Monument if standing shoulder to shoulder. It has absolutely nothing to do with the mall between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial where the Beck rally took place.

Now are you willing to admit that no one has come up with a Beck Rally estimate of 2,000,000?

 

[Biscuit]

Watch this video for a good laugh and a lot of face palming but also look at the background. There isn't a single shot that shows the kind of density that some are claiming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8PmEjxUfg&feature=player_embedded#!

In this video FOX news claims 10's of thousands and not hundreds of thousands. Also in the video at about 2:10 they cut to an interview that again shows how sparsely populated the mall was. The area behind the woman, covered in trees, is almost entirely empty of people. In fact it appears to be roped off! So the idea that additional people were hidden by the trees seems a little shaky now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y67TMzpc7NM

 

[Ladewig]

Sure. You're repeating dronelike, mediamatters' crap.

??!!

Let's review.

In post #294, Mhaze estimated the crowd to be 250K and concluded that estimates that grossly vary from this number are the result of biased, lying hacks.

In post #295, Lurker points out that Michele Bachman's estimate grossly varies from Mhaze's estimate and concludes that Congresswoman Bachman is a biased, lying hack.

In post #316, Ladewig asks for a comment on Lurker's conclusion.

In post #337, Mhaze accuses Ladewig of repeating repeating dronelike, mediamatters crap.

WTF are you talking about? I asked about Bachman's estimate. I did not question your estimate or even the estimates that were as high as 500,000.

My comment was not to discount your estimate in any way. I asked for your comment on her number to see if you would be consistent in your condemnation of people who have estimates that grossly vary from yours.

So, do you have a comment on Bachman's number?

 

[Ladewig]

But using the word "controversial" is editorializing. This brings us to how the lame stream media uses adjectives for people and events one side of the political spectrum, but omits such editorializing when the people and events are on the other side.


Glenn Beck is referred to as a "Controversial Conservative"

Al Sharpton is referred to as a "Civil Rights Leader"

CBS The Early Show:

NEWS ANCHOR JEFF GLOR: TV and radio host Glenn Beck is hosting a rally in Washington tomorrow, and it's taking place on the same day as the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's historic "I Have a Dream" speech. CBS News correspondent Whit Johnson is in Washington this morning with the latest on that. Whit, good morning.

WHIT JOHNSON: Jeff, good morning. Well, one rally will be hosted by civil rights leaders, one by controversial conservative talk show host Glenn Beck. But Beck insists the scheduling of his event -- on the very same day -- is nothing more than a coincidence.

And the goalposts are officially moved.

In every post up to this one, I have been talking about the event being controversial. I never claimed that it was appropriate to call Mr. Beck controversial. I still maintain that Beck's previous statements made this event controversial. Twice I have provided evidence for my assertion, and twice you have ignored it.

 

[Denver]

Speaking of number of attendees, Beck this week launched a new "news" web site, called "The Blaze".

I expect the next big controversy over numbers, is going to be the number of hits, or registered users, at that web site.

 

[Cicero]

Oh My God! Tell me you are joking, please tell me you are joking!

Not only is the quote from a story on the Obama inauguration, the estimate the Professor Doig came up with for that event was 800,000. The 2,000,000 number comes from his hypothesizing how many people would fit between the Capitol and the Washington Monument if standing shoulder to shoulder. It has absolutely nothing to do with the mall between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial where the Beck rally took place.

Now are you willing to admit that no one has come up with a Beck Rally estimate of 2,000,000?

"If people up and down the Mall were crammed that tight, there could have been 2 million."


Where does Stevie exclude the area of the mall between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial in that sentence? Has this space changed since 2009? leftysergeant asked for estimate of numbers. I gave the top end that could possibly attend the function. That figure is provided by the same person CBS News relied on for their exact 87,000 figure (+/- 9000).

If 2 million people did show up at Beck's rally would you have left the country?

 

[Cicero]

And the goalposts are officially moved.

In every post up to this one, I have been talking about the event being controversial. I never claimed that it was appropriate to call Mr. Beck controversial. I still maintain that Beck's previous statements made this event controversial. Twice I have provided evidence for my assertion, and twice you have ignored it.

My response was to Lurker. But for the record, you now state that it is NOT appropriate to refer to beck as "controversial" only events he appears at? OK.

 

[Spindrift]

"If people up and down the Mall were crammed that tight, there could have been 2 million."


Where does Stevie exclude the area of the mall between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial in that sentence? Has this space changed since 2009? leftysergeant asked for estimate of numbers. I gave the top end that could possibly attend the function. That figure is provided by the same person CBS News relied on for their exact 87,000 figure (+/- 9000).

If 2 million people did show up at Beck's rally would you have left the country?

You do realize the Inaugural is held at the other end of the mall by the Capitol. The geography is totally different, the potential numbers are totally different from an event at the Lincoln Memorial.

 

[Ladewig]

My response was to Lurker. But for the record, you now state that it is NOT appropriate to refer to beck as "controversial" only events he appears at? OK.

If Sharpton wanted to hold a press conference at the gravesite of Ronald Reagan on the anniversary of his death, then I would call that event controversial and I hope that the media would agree.

SOME of the events that Beck appears at will be controversial. I gave a complete list of reasons for my reasoning concerning this particulart event. If you do not agree with them then please identify the specific points that should be excluded when determing if the event is controversial.

 

[Spindrift]

airphotoslive has posted over 400 images it took:
http://photosynth.net/view.aspx?cid...1638966347034:-1.35131803732056&p=0:0&t=False

ETA: Awful lot of green in between.

 

[Ladewig]

"If people up and down the Mall were crammed that tight, there could have been 2 million."


Where does Stevie exclude the area of the mall between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial in that sentence? Has this space changed since 2009? leftysergeant asked for estimate of numbers. I gave the top end that could possibly attend the function. That figure is provided by the same person CBS News relied on for their exact 87,000 figure (+/- 9000).

If 2 million people did show up at Beck's rally would you have left the country?

I have looked back over the thread. The 2,000,000 was a made-up number designed to yank leftysargent's chain. I reacted to it and you strung it along for several pages while I lapped it up.

So now I have to ask: really? That's your idea of entertaining yourself? Rather than have an adult discussion about the matter you make stuff up to provoke a reaction in someone whose politics is different from yours.

 

[dudalb]

My main concern is that apparently there is no place for Athiests or Agnostics in Glenn Beck's America with his "Back to God" rhetoric.