• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Showdown in Washington, D.C.

dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...
That he wants clergymen to promote his revolution from the pulpit is even scarier.
 
Cicero said:
Apparently? You interviewed all the people at the rally and concluded there was not one? There are certainly no Atheists or Agnostics that watch Albert Pujols play.

http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/...-honored-with-hope-award-at-glenn-beck-rally/
Click to expand...

A novel thought, here, but have you considered actually READING what was said? Dudalb was saying that given what Beck has said in the past, there is no place for an atheist or an agnostic. Given how harshly he treats both, I would tend to agree.

As to Albert Pujols, I know nothing about the man, save what I've read on Wikipedia. And while there's a great deal to admire about him, including the fact that he aced his citizenship exam, and is active in helping Downs Syndrome children, (admirable), getting an award from Beck is something I might avoid if I were ever offered one, (not that I need worry about that), simply because everything is partisan with him.
 
Ladewig said:
....
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?
Click to expand...
Sure, Backman's number is wrong because people were not that tightly packed. Whether it qualifies as a lie is based on other things. EG, hindsight's perfect, here we are discussing it several days later. Anything said at the event or shortly thereafter regarding crowd count would have been a WAG.

If Backman two days later is claiming 1M then she's wrong if she's been advised of scientific counts and continues to claim that she's lying. Having said that I have a very conservative bias when I said my two minutes yielded 250K and I have no problem with someone using a number of 500K it's within a reasonable range of possibility.

Yet another measure of crowd count would be the amount of trash left by the crowd. Using this measure Obaby's inag crowd was millions, nay, trillions and the Beck 828 rally had zero people.

Would you prefer that measure of crowd count?
 
mhaze said:
Sure, Backman's number is wrong because people were not that tightly packed. Whether it qualifies as a lie is based on other things. EG, hindsight's perfect, here we are discussing it several days later. Anything said at the event or shortly thereafter regarding crowd count would have been a WAG.

If Backman two days later is claiming 1M then she's wrong if she's been advised of scientific counts and continues to claim that she's lying.
Click to expand...

She's still saying it:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-million-people-at-glenn-beck-rally-audio.php
mhaze said:
Having said that I have a very conservative bias when I said my two minutes yielded 250K and I have no problem with someone using a number of 500K it's within a reasonable range of possibility.

Yet another measure of crowd count would be the amount of trash left by the crowd. Using this measure Obaby's inag crowd was millions, nay, trillions and the Beck 828 rally had zero people.

Would you prefer that measure of crowd count?
Click to expand...
No, I'd prefer to see your two minutes of calculations.
 
Biscuit said:
BaC - I am not even going to go into your tree size estimations
Click to expand...

Why not? You raised the issue of trees and I tried to give your concern the benefit of the doubt. Now all of a sudden you want to drop it?

Biscuit said:
and belief that 87K people would be gathered at the mall and not a single toilet would be available
Click to expand...

Which of course I never suggested. I just noted there are no toilets visible in the open areas. I'm sure there are toilets in the area. But even if there are toilets, do you honestly think the amount of area they cover is any sizeable fraction of the total area?

Biscuit said:
I will show you what appears to be nearly the entire crowd seated in lawn chairs like a day at the beach!
Click to expand...

Ok, I will admit those folks in that photo are sitting and occupying more than 2.5 sf per person. And looking back over the various images I've seen, I'll admit that other photos (such as image 3 from http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44954/ ) show people sitting (either in chairs or on the grass). But that doesn't represent the "entire crowd"?

Look at the 5th through 8th photos here: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44950/ . Images 5 and 6 show people near and under the trees on both sides of the pond. These people are standing close to one another … closer than they would not be able to do were there chairs in these areas. Image 8 is another view of people on the right side under the trees, from a location quite close to the Lincoln Memorial. And again, these are people standing very close to one another. I see a wheel chair bound person but I do not see any chairs. Image 7 from http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44952/ shows people under the trees standing shoulder to shoulder. Image 9 from http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44956/ also shows people in the trees on the right side of the pond. Well back into the trees. And these people are clearly standing in close proximity to one another. Photo 10, below that, shows the same thing. People standing shoulder to shoulder, something they could not do if the "entire crowd" was sitting on chairs. And as far as the folks next to the pool is concerned, Image 7 of http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44950/ is near the pond on the right side, but back where the second of the TV screens on the right side is located. These people are clearly standing in cross proximity to one another, something they could not do were there chairs. So at some point down the length of the pond, people may be standing, not sitting.

But I will agree that my calculations need modifying.

I'll start with the crowd that is next to the pond. I'll assume it consists solely of people sitting in chairs. How much space does such a person occupy? 15 sq feet per person seems more than generous for the chair and space between chairs. Agreed? At that density ( I'm ignoring the possibility that at some point, the crowd along the pool transitions from sitting to standing), the area that is visible on each side of the reflecting pool before reaching the nearest trees … which my eyeballs still say is about 6/10ths of the reflecting pool in total width … would comprise a crowd of about 2029 * 167 * 0.6 / 15 ~ 14,000.

Next, I count the people that are in the trees on both sides. The photos seem to suggest that most of these people are not sitting but standing. Based on the photos, I suggest those people are standing in a crowd of "average" density according to the Park Police methodology … i.e., occupying 5 sf on average per person. Clearly there are many people standing much more densely than that but there also are people standing less densely. And just to be conservative (from CBS' perspective) , I'm going to assume a figure of 7.5 sf per person in this portion of the calculation. Sound fair? Now I pointed out previously the regions with people under the trees on both sides of the pond is more than equal in width to the reflecting pool itself. The photos all seem to suggest that is true. But I'll be a little more precise this time. Looking at image 1 in http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44950/ , my eyeballs say that combining the width of the band of trees on the left with the width of trees on the right out to where gaps in the trees still show dense crowds is at least 25% greater than the width of the reflecting pool. Using all of that data gives a crowd of about 2029 * 167 *1.25 / 7.5 = 56,000.

Next, one of the photos that I previously linked (a link that is unfortunately no longer working) showed there were crowds gathered on the right side of the pool near the Lincoln Memorial that were almost twice the width of the reflecting pool from the reflecting pool itself. This was probably because people viewed that area as a good place to see the podium which is nearby. Image http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/28/article-1306961-0AF38360000005DC-7_634x420.jpg certainly suggest that the crowd viewed that side of the Lincoln Memorial as a good place to view the activities. Now the above places a crowd about 75% of the reflecting pool width further out from the area that has already been counted on that side of the pool. But I'm only going to assume it's another 50% of a pool width out. And the previous image that I'd linked suggested that portion of the image with people extended down about 1/3rd the length of the pool from the Lincoln Memorial, but let's assume it only extends down a 1/6th of the way. Then, assuming that the density of the crowd is the same as just used above … 7.5 sf per person, that region would add another 2029 * 0.16 * 167 * 0.5 / 7.5 = 3,600.

Next, on the left side of the image, I see a crowd in the large open area on the other side of the trees that are nearest the reflecting pool. That area is about 20-25% wider than the reflecting pool. The density of people in this region looks to be about the same over about 2/3rds to 3/4ths the length of the area. Let's just use 2/3rds of the pool length. And in those areas, the density appears to be close to that next to the pond. In other words, I'll assume people are sitting down on the grass on something. I'll even conservatively (from CBS' perspective) assume the density of people is only 1 person per 20 sf. With that assumption, the crowd in this region is at least 2029 * 0.67 * 167 * 1.2 / 20 = 14,000.

Now the number of people in the other 1/3rd of that area is admittedly much less. My eyeballs suggest a about 2000. Fair enough?

But now we have some areas that haven't been counted before. There are a large number of people at both ends of the pool and off to the left and particularly right (looking towards the Lincoln Memorial) side of the Lincoln Memorial.

The crowd between the pool and the Vietnam Memorial (and extending to the trees beyond) appears to be standing shoulder to shoulder and about 5 to 10 people deep. That would produce a total of about 1.6 * 267 / 3 * 7.5 people = 600 people.

The crowd behind the Vietnam Memorial, by visual inspection, numbers in a few thousand. Assume 2000 in total.

The crowd on and around the Lincoln Memorial also, by visual inspection, also numbers in the thousands. For example look at http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/28/article-1306961-0AF38360000005DC-7_634x420.jpg

So let's see where I stand now.

14,000 + 56,000 + 3,600 + 14,000 + + 2000 + 600 + 2000 + 2000 = 94,000.

Given that is within CBS' error bounds, I'll now accept the CBS estimate as legitimate (sorry CBS for doubting you). Just for confirmation, I'd still like to see the high res photos they used. To see if their resolution is adequate to do the above, or whether they just got lucky. Because frankly, I have no more trust in CBS than you do in FOX News. :D
 
Spindrift said:
She's still saying it:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-million-people-at-glenn-beck-rally-audio.php

No, I'd prefer to see your two minutes of calculations.
Click to expand...

Right. But let's examine your preferences. I've said two minutes of eighth grade level math with google earth and a plugin.

I'll assume you are past eighth grade average intelligence.

I'll assume you have had a bit of eighth grade level math.

Yep.....

A lot of folks just want to have someone else do their homework questions, but in this thread, it's just liberals seem to want that for like, for free.

Now why should anyone agree to your moochy request for redistribution of the wealth of equations?
 
mhaze said:
Sure, Backman's number is wrong because people were not that tightly packed. Whether it qualifies as a lie is based on other things. EG, hindsight's perfect, here we are discussing it several days later. Anything said at the event or shortly thereafter regarding crowd count would have been a WAG.

If Backman two days later is claiming 1M then she's wrong if she's been advised of scientific counts and continues to claim that she's lying. Having said that I have a very conservative bias when I said my two minutes yielded 250K and I have no problem with someone using a number of 500K it's within a reasonable range of possibility.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification of your position.

Yet another measure of crowd count would be the amount of trash left by the crowd. Using this measure Obaby's inag crowd was millions, nay, trillions and the Beck 828 rally had zero people.

Would you prefer that measure of crowd count?
Click to expand...

To me, it seems as if there would be all sorts of checks that one could use against estimates made from the ground or air. An ambitious reporter could find the number of paid subway fares, booked hotel rooms, revenues from local parking garages, etc. None of these would provide an accurate number for actual attendance but they would provide additional evidence in helping to determine the order of magnitude.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Right. But let's examine your preferences. I've said two minutes of eighth grade level math with google earth and a plugin.

I'll assume you are past eighth grade average intelligence.

I'll assume you have had a bit of eighth grade level math.

Yep.....

A lot of folks just want to have someone else do their homework questions, but in this thread, it's just liberals seem to want that for like, for free.

Now why should anyone agree to your moochy request for redistribution of the wealth of equations?
Click to expand...
I'm not the one who claimed to do the calculations. You are. Why are you afraid to show your work? Afraid it will be ripped to shreds? Or maybe because you didn't do any?
C'mon fess up. You never did any calculations, do you?

Yep....

A lot of folks just want to have someone else believe everything they say, but in this forum, it's just CTers that seem to want you to believe with no proof.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Sure, Backman's number is wrong because people were not that tightly packed. Whether it qualifies as a lie is based on other things. EG, hindsight's perfect, here we are discussing it several days later. Anything said at the event or shortly thereafter regarding crowd count would have been a WAG.

If Backman two days later is claiming 1M then she's wrong if she's been advised of scientific counts and continues to claim that she's lying. Having said that I have a very conservative bias when I said my two minutes yielded 250K and I have no problem with someone using a number of 500K it's within a reasonable range of possibility.

Yet another measure of crowd count would be the amount of trash left by the crowd. Using this measure Obaby's inag crowd was millions, nay, trillions and the Beck 828 rally had zero people.

Would you prefer that measure of crowd count?
Click to expand...

Bachmann's wrong, based on the basic logistics. Look, you can't just casually get a million, or 1.6 million, out-of-towners (and Beck is not on his home turf here) into and out of the National Mall on a Saturday. You'll need people sharing hotel rooms, extra effort from the Metro, the cops, and bussing companies, people to help them figure out the Metro (Seriously, post helpers at every station!) - and you'd tie up the entire region for the day.

The last event I recall that brought out a million people or thereabouts was Obama's inauguration, and that was a total mess. I know guys that left the inauguration, and got home to Baltimore more than 12 hours later. I have friends who commute into DC, and manage various shops, and they basically slept over at work for a couple of days. They wouldn't give up on the revenue, but they couldn't commute on Inauguration day.

And, you can't fit a million people around the Reflecting Pool, and in the field to the south. It's just not that big of a space. You can't fit 500k people there, either. 250k would be standing-room only.

But,now that you mention it, you probably could come up with something based on the amount of trash generated.
 
mhaze said:
Now why should anyone agree to your moochy request for redistribution of the wealth of equations?
Click to expand...

Some of us would probably find it boring and incomprehensible, some would find it correct, if it is correct. I couldn't possibly judge that myself, being nearly dyscalculic. Some might find it knee-slappingly funny in its wrongness.

I will just assume, until you run it by some of our resident number-crunchers, that you pulled it out of your butt and don't want to admit it.


i am going by what I can observe in the real world. I have been given the figures that should apply were the areas in question occupied to optimal density. So I look at the colors visible in the photos and see square-yard-upon-square-yard of grass green and say "bollocks!"
 
MattusMaximus said:
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.
Click to expand...

mhaze said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ummm, because people who haven't made up their minds about this yet are perhaps interested in seeing your work to see if it makes sense?

Despite the fact that I've touted the CBS analysis here, that doesn't necessarily mean that I believe their estimate to be correct (my hunch is it could be a tad low, but that's just a hunch). It's just that is the only estimate I've been presented with that actually shows the methodology (the Daily Kos article I referenced did this as well).

So, if we are really interested in getting a handle on a decent number, then why wouldn't we want to analyze the calculations?

Again, please show your work. If you don't, I might as well dismiss your estimates as made up. If you do, then we have something else to work with besides the usual partisan bickering.

mhaze said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, if it is such a simple calculation, you should be able to easily show the work including the assumptions you've made going into it. Hell, even BAC is showing his work for the estimates he's come up with... why can't (won't) you?
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
So let's see where I stand now.

14,000 + 56,000 + 3,600 + 14,000 + + 2000 + 600 + 2000 + 2000 = 94,000.

Given that is within CBS' error bounds, I'll now accept the CBS estimate as legitimate (sorry CBS for doubting you). Just for confirmation, I'd still like to see the high res photos they used.
Click to expand...
very noble of you. Thanks for that.
 
leftysergeant said:
Some of us would probably find it boring and incomprehensible, some would find it correct, if it is correct. I couldn't possibly judge that myself, being nearly dyscalculic. Some might find it knee-slappingly funny in its wrongness.

I will just assume, until you run it by some of our resident number-crunchers, that you pulled it out of your butt and don't want to admit it.


i am going by what I can observe in the real world. I have been given the figures that should apply were the areas in question occupied to optimal density. So I look at the colors visible in the photos and see square-yard-upon-square-yard of grass green and say "bollocks!"
Click to expand...

Sounds like a fair answer. But I provided the three clues necessary for anyone who wished to make an independent verification.

Ain't doing other peoples' homework for them though.
 
mhaze said:
Sounds like a fair answer. But I provided the three clues necessary for anyone who wished to make an independent verification.

Ain't doing other peoples' homework for them though.
Click to expand...

Not when you haven't done your own homework yet.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Kudos to BAC for working through the math and showing it here for all to see.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/77474823c4a54b00a.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...
"working through the math" makes it sound like an arduous struggle solving a series of intractable partial differential equations to arrive at his answer. He multiplied and divided numbers. Showing his work merits a polite golf clap in acknowledgment but I guess that sort of effort is in short supply these days so it is surprising to see it.
 
Lurker said:
"working through the math" makes it sound like an arduous struggle solving a series of intractable partial differential equations to arrive at his answer. He multiplied and divided numbers. Showing his work merits a polite golf clap in acknowledgment but I guess that sort of effort is in short supply these days so it is surprising to see it.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's exactly what I have been trying to indicate. Somewhat appalling, actually...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom