The liberal media admit that there were tens of thousands of people. But the starting area filled up before the official starting time, so they started early. Other sources estimate 350,000 to over 1,000,000 in attendance. Photo source.
Liberty Belle went, but hasn't filed a report yet.
NPR National Public Radio:
As the demonstrators walked along Pennsylvania Avenue toward the U.S. Capitol, the line stretched as far as the eye could see in either direction. The crowd was so thick in places that it was difficult to move. People like Jenni Goyet, a mother of two from Virginia Beach, Va., say they came for a whole range of issues.Agence France-Presse at Yahoo News"Health care for one, government spending all of our money on stuff that we're not approving them to spend it on. I have a 7- and a 4-year-old, and they have a lot of debt already, and they shouldn't have that," Goyet says.
They carried hand-painted posters protesting Obama's proposed health care reforms and accusing his administration of leading the United States down the road to socialism. "Abortion is not healthcare," read one sign.Associated PressAnother, held aloft by an immigrant from Ukraine, said: "I had enough of socialism in the USSR." The demonstrator, who refused to give his name, said he had come to Washington from Baltimore because "too many things remind me of what I saw in the communist countries.
"Communism didn't work over there and it's not going to work over here," he told AFP.
Terri Hall, 45, of Starke, Fla., said she felt compelled to become political for the first time this year because she was upset by government spending.Seattle Times carries the report from the New York Times:
"Our government has lost sight of the powers they were granted," she said. She added that deficit spending is out of control, and said she thought it was putting the country at risk.
Race became an issue when a black Republican leader denounced African-American politicians who she said had an "affinity" for socialism. "I'm outraged prominent black politicians use the race card" to cover up their failed policies, said Deneen Borelli of New York.Eyewitness account by Mark Hemingway at National Review OnlineOne woman held a sign with images of Martin Luther King Jr. and Obama, with the words printed alongside: "He had a dream, we got a nightmare."
Other demonstrators did not focus on Obama but rather on the government at large.
As a journalist who wears his cynicism like a badge of honor, to say that today's tea party protest wildly exceeded my expectations would be an understatement. I've yet to see a reliable estimate of the crowd size and the cops seemed bound and determined to keep any photographers away from any high vantage points, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't well into six figures. I've heard crowd-size estimates ranging from 350,000 to 1.5 million -- the latter seems overly optimistic, but even the former figure would still be incredibly impressive....Local 9/12 events?So many people showed up they couldn't contain everybody in the plaza, so they just started the march early to make room. As for the composition of the crowd, well I personally spoke to people from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Idaho, Alaska, Delaware, Tennessee, Nevada, California, Montana, as well as Virginia and Maryland, natch. (And I'm probably forgetting a few.) What also bears noting is that a lot of people came by bus -- and of the people that came to the march by bus, alomst all came on privately chartered buses organized by someone they knew. I asked one guy, who came up from South Carolina with 160 people on three buses, who put his trip together. He laughed and said, "My neighbor." Can we drive a stake through the astroturf claim now?
Another interesting detail about the march -- it was filled with immigrants. I'm pretty sure every Cuban in a thousand mile radius was there, helpfully explaining to everyone who would listen that Cuba's vaunted free health care system involves shoddily trained doctors and bringing your own linen to the hospital. I also spoke to angry immigrants from England and Ireland, appalled the country was slouching toward socialized medicine.
But perhaps the most interesting thing about the crowd was how friendly and civil it was. It was also a fun crowd -- to the well endowed redhead in the "Boobs Czar" T-shirt, I doff my cap to you m'lady. There was some concern that media attention would focus on a few fringe cranks. Well, out of what had to be hundreds of thousands, I saw two, count 'em, birther signs in hours of wandering around. (I did, however, see one person holding up a sign expressing concern about "Merovingians" running the country. With birthers and truthers, I didn't know there were still that many people concerned about the illuminati -- old skool conspiracy theorizin' represent!)
But overall it was an undeniably sober and informed crowd, especially in comparison to your standard left-liberal protest march. These people have jobs, are infuential in their communities and you can be darn sure they plan on voting next November.
If you attended a local event please post a comment. Posted by Ron Hebron at September 13, 2009 07:39 AM | Email This
Posted by: Daniel on September 13, 2009 08:44 AM
Hope the Tea Partiers blow the doors of Zero's Marxist aspirations.
I attended my first "protest" in my lifetime to weeks ago, Norm Dicks' Town Hall in Port Townsend, where local Commies were blown away by the turnout of highly-vocal normal people.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 13, 2009 08:56 AMAnd this statement:
But overall it was an undeniably sober and informed crowd
is QUITE laughable. :)
Posted by: demo kid on September 13, 2009 08:56 AMMaybe, just maybe, there's hope yet.
November 2, 2010. Mark your calendars. That's the day we either take back our country, or...
Posted by: Hoplophile on September 13, 2009 09:13 AMBecause you know, there's just no way there could be that many people who are fed up with the crap going on in DC.
You two - and those like you - are fools and should never be taken seriously again.
Posted by: jimg on September 13, 2009 09:22 AMRight! Because questioning authority is what those assembled are protesting against. :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 13, 2009 09:36 AMThey just cannot believe that we have had enough.
And when our people leave a demonstration, they don't leave the place littered with trash.
Posted by: Gary on September 13, 2009 09:46 AMWhich is a completely admirable number, but not the range that Ron speaks about. Of all the bloggers here, Ron seems to have a particular problem with the facts. He is not lying, but he is dead wrong.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 13, 2009 09:51 AMAnd CNN calls 'em all racists.
Posted by: Gary on September 13, 2009 09:54 AMI did see lots of women and kids, but I would love to see more.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on September 13, 2009 10:09 AMHow true! Affirmative Action comes to life in the form of a locust-like swarm of Marxists, trained in the Saul Alinksy/Bill Ayers indoctrination camps known as universities. They flood from the cities, armed with lies, intimidating tactics and federal dollars, under the banner of ACORN and SEIU. My advice to law-abiding, taxpaying citizens-don't let them confiscate your guns.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 13, 2009 10:16 AMHey rizzo - Ron was just reporting the FACTS as published elsewhere. He made no personal claims as to the size of the crowd. As usual you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about (not that it has ever stopped you in the past!)...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on September 13, 2009 10:16 AMThose other sources would be FreedomWorks, National Review Online, and other totally credible reporters.
But, hey, even 70,000 is an impressive number. I'm just trying to figure what the impact is going to be when all those people go out and vote exactly the same way they did last November...
Posted by: scottd on September 13, 2009 10:19 AMIt's true that "other" sources gave a highly inaccurate count of the attendance. It is also true that Ron made an editorial decision to highlight these "other," partisan sources instead of attempting to find the real number.
1 million people? That is completely laughable. Saying you had a million people is like saying you're a lady. If you have to say you're a lady, you probably aren't.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 13, 2009 10:25 AMDo you even care about being right? Do you even care about facts? Evidence? Or is everything just a game in manipulation?
70,000 is a lot of people. Instead of playing up your strengths about a real anger brewing in America, you completely distract from your own arguments by saying things which simply do not fit with reality. Then people talk about why you're making shit up, instead of talking about taxes or spending or whatever you want them to talk about.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 13, 2009 10:37 AMHowever, even if it is "only" a few hundred thousand in D.C. There were also people meeting in cities and towns all over the country. Those on the left (and that includes the MSM) try to minimize the size and scope of this movement because it is a threat to them. I just have to laugh at how transparent they are...
Posted by: Bill H on September 13, 2009 10:48 AMSame here - only of you. Do you need help to find the door?
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on September 13, 2009 10:49 AMAnd who did they cite for that?
Michelle Malkin thinks there was no where near 2 million people there. Is she a liberal?
I have also heard that the D.C. police estimated 1.5 million and the D.C. Parks Service estimated 1.2 million
I'm glad you heard that. But it's not true. Do you have sources?
Posted by: John Jensen on September 13, 2009 10:54 AMReally? Where'd you hear that?
Posted by: scottd on September 13, 2009 11:02 AMIt was really hot down here yesterday, but that did not stop all who came out to be part of it.
http://lewwaters.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/we-the-people-rally-at-vancouver-landing-september-12-2009/
Of course, the Columbian barely makes any mention of it today.
Posted by: Lew Waters on September 13, 2009 11:09 AM"What is needed are more African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, youth and women."
DUFFMAN
Apparently you were watching the wrong station. There were plenty of these folks there.
Take a look at:
http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/09/conservative-woodstock-rocks-the-capital/
And if you actually read the Daily Mail article, they cited "Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency".
There is also time lapse photography of the march. Even for a skeptic, it is easy to see that it is much nearer a million than it is to 100,000.
Posted by: Bill on September 13, 2009 11:18 AMThey didn't give a number count. No agency has besides the DC Fire Department.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 13, 2009 11:25 AMhttp://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/09/conservative-woodstock-rocks-the-capital/
According to who? You? ABC? DC Fire Department gave the estimate that ABC cited? Can you prove that other than the ABC link? Your source is not the DC Fire Department, it is ABC. Just as the Daily Mail is the source for the "up to 2 million" citing Homeland Security.
You cited Michelle Malkin before. Here is what I found at her
Actual Website
Note the crowd pictures. Note the timelapse photography of the march. Now note the park service's way of estimating crowd size from this USA Today article
Now, you want to tell me again how there were 60-70,000 people there. If you really believe that, then you're beyond being objective regardless of whether you have ABC on your side or not.
Posted by: Bill on September 13, 2009 11:44 AMThe crowds in DC and nationwide, no matter what size, are focused, informed, energized, civil, and make their undeniable point. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Daily Kos can say whatever they want about the photos, crowd size, etc. But we all know that the mo is there. Here's hoping each and every one of us keeps this spirit alive and gets involved big time in next year's elections.
Posted by: Obama's Teleprompter on September 13, 2009 11:47 AMrizzo - objective?! Surely you jest!
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on September 13, 2009 11:48 AMInstead of making shit up, why don't you quote the sentence? The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. (src)
Homeland security did not give a crowd estimate.
You keep on telling me to look at pictures. I keep on saying that I do not have training to look at pictures and determine crowd size. Do you?
Meanwhile, at least three times in this thread people have cited agencies as giving estimates that these agencies did not. I am interested in pursuing the facts, but you seem interested in exaggerating how many people flew to DC.
ABC News wrote: approximately 60,000 to 70,000 people flooded Pennsylvania Ave, according to the Washington DC Fire Department. That is who they are citing.
Fox News also says "tens of thousands." Why does Fox News say that?
Posted by: John Jensen on September 13, 2009 11:56 AMI thought libs always told us Fox News lies. All of a sudden they are a beacon of truth now?
Posted by: Huh? on September 13, 2009 12:02 PMYou make you look like an idiot rizzo. Look - it worked!
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on September 13, 2009 12:12 PMHere is the FULL context:
"Up to two million people marched to the U.S. Capitol today, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" as they protested the president's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.
The line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency."
Seems to me they got their crowd estimate from Homeland Security.
you keep "quoting" the DC Fire Department as "experts" in estimating crowd size too. They are NOT experts. I don't think they have ever even estimated crowd size. The D.C. Parks Service are the experts.
"Homeland security did not give a crowd estimate."
Says who? You? The one who links to MediaMatters to claim what Michelle Malkin had to say?
"You keep on telling me to look at pictures. I keep on saying that I do not have training to look at pictures and determine crowd size. Do you?"
So now you are feigning ignorance and stupidity as an excuse. Good one!
Sure, I have as much training as the DC Fire Department. The Parks Service created a "Crowd Estimates for Dummies" in the USA Today article. It may not allow you to get precise estimates, but it sure as hell can let you distinguish between 60-70,000 vs a million or more. It's not even a close call!
You say you are interested in facts. Yet you argue from an absurdity. You can't look at pictures and time lapse photography and distinguish between 60-70,000 vs a million--even with the cheatsheet that the Park Service helpfully provided. You're beyond hope...
Posted by: Bill on September 13, 2009 12:20 PMYou're making a huge assumption, and it's certainly wrong. Try to find a single other media source quoting this agency. You won't find it. I tried.
The Parks Service created a "Crowd Estimates for Dummies" in the USA Today article.
I have no idea whether the shots I've seen have extended all the way to the mall or not. It seems like you're making a leap.
Which you are. You're making leaps. You're guessing.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 13, 2009 12:23 PMYou sure about that?
Posted by: John Jensen on September 13, 2009 12:25 PMThe line of protesters spread across Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks, all the way to the capitol, according to the Washington Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency.
Nothing about two million people attributed to that agency. All they say is the protestors filled Penn Ave "for blocks". 50,000 people will do that.
The USA Today article doesn't support your claim either. It shows that a densely packed stationary crowd filling the Mall from the Capitol to 14th ST will number around 1.2 million. But the video doesn't show the Mall -- it shows much narrower Penn Ave. And it doesn't show a densely packed stationary crowd -- it shows people walking. That takes up more space.
What makes you think that time-lapse video shows 2 million people -- or even close to a million? Honestly, I look at it and I would estimate maybe 50 - 150K at most. But you're supposed to be a numbers guy. I'd like to hear how you came up with 2 million from that video.
PS: I'm also waiting to learn where you heard those park service and DC police estimates of 1.2 and 1.5 million. No doubt you have totally credible sources for that...
No -- he's wishing.
Posted by: scottd on September 13, 2009 12:29 PMYou sure about that?"
When it comes to estimating the crowds, yes, I am sure...
Focus on the issue - thousands upon thousands of people showed up in DC to protest the reckless, out-of-control spending by Congress and Obama. And it drives them nuts.
Let them continue to whine about pictures and crowd estimates. It only shows how out of touch they really are.
Next up? How the machines were rigged and elections were stolen in 2010.
Posted by: jimg on September 13, 2009 02:20 PMKOS crazypants behavior aside, don't let the trolls sidetrack the discussion re numbers. The fact is, the turn-out was HUGE and obviously came under the radar for many observers. One photo I saw showed someone with a sign that said "Worried democrat". I suppose the trolls will call him a kook, as well. But truly, these are patriots through and through. I'm totally proud of them.
One of the funniest signs I saw (linked through Michelle Malkin and called "Lookingattheleft.com") had a picture of an angry-looking leftwing revolutionary guy strongarming another with a $ sign on his arm and yelling "Stop making profit! Report all capitalist activities to 'flag@whitehouse.gov'" LOL!!
Two other attendees of interest were the guy holding a sign depicting Obama as the Mad Magazine guy and the words "Blowing Mad Money". He said he was really sorry he hadn't brought his family, but that as a black conservative "he was afraid to expose his children to what he thought would be alot of liberal abuse...He spoke about how INCREDIBLY INTOLERANT the Left is to black individuals who don't tow the party line." Too true. (He likely heard about poor Kenneth Gladney who was beaten, kicked and called racist names by democrat thugs some weeks ago. who could blame him for being worried?)
Another black conservative who did look to be there with his son held one of my other favorite signs "I'm not from the Party of NO; I'm with the Party of HELL NO!" And it's guaranteed he wasn't talking about a political party, but the American People party--you know, all the millions of americans who are appalled at what Obama and his leftist minions are trying to jamb down our throats, even while the majority of americans do not favor the radical leftist direction O & Pelosi are trying to railroad the country toward.
I am certain that police or other security agencies have aerial footage of the crowds and these can give a good accounting of the actual numbers who marched.
All that is needed now is for some intrepid "investigative reporter" to do some fact checking. I don't imagine there would be any issue getting the aerial footage (and if there was I expect there would be a sh1t storm of 1st Amendment litigation).
So, I am pretty confident that we will see the real numbers (well, close anyway) based on the aerial imagery, and then we can put this issue to rest.
Posted by: deadwood on September 13, 2009 04:13 PMMy mom went to the one in Lewiston, Id where she said that somewhere between 150 and 200 came to here some great speakers.
Posted by: Ray on September 13, 2009 04:36 PMWhatever happened to the 'work ethic'. Posted by: Sampson on September 13, 2009 05:21 PM
What you're seeing is behavior very similar to the current Iranian regime after this summer's election. Behavior similar to the twisted "official" reality that used to be printed by Pravda and is still rolling off the presses in NoKo.
Regardless of the political affiliation of organized group, we should all be very suspicious of the ones that readily propagandize and try to twist reality. For if those groups ever came to power, we would have a real mess on our hands.
Posted by: blindman on September 13, 2009 06:14 PM
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/09/912aerial.php
Then compare this to a photo of a 100,000 seat football stadium.
http://www.nakedauthors.com/uploaded_images/Beaver-Stadium-Full-757244.jpg
Note the size of the players on the field and compare them to the folks at the foot of Washington Monument. The people on the football field are at least 3 times the size of the people on the mall.
There is no way that the DC crowd is under 100,000 people. Given the left wing bias of the media, I am sure they were delighted to take the fire department estimate, and not provide any additional analysis. Fox knew that if they bucked that number they would be flayed for it. No government agency is going to give a fair estimate to this kind of crowd. Regardless of the party in power, the bureaucrats are overwhelmingly leftists.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on September 13, 2009 08:43 PMEvidence please. My money is on leftwing/progressive propaganda ?
Posted by: KDS on September 13, 2009 09:21 PMI realize how hard that must be, though, given that it's easier for you to just blame liberals rather than actually fact-check.
Posted by: Joe Wisconsin on September 13, 2009 09:44 PMIf you check the pictures from 912 you'll see that it is overcast but that pic shows full sun...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on September 13, 2009 09:47 PMFor the Tea Party march only part of the group could fit on the section of the Mall that they were allowed to use, so Pennsylvania Avenue was packed with people for hours. The "Baghdad Bob Gibbs" picture is one of the best showing that part of the march.
Posted by: GaryC on September 13, 2009 09:54 PMThe reason I do not give 1.2 or 1.5 million is because from the Poweline photo it appears the Capitol grounds were not used for the protest.
The Park Service method uses 240K for the Capitol grounds and 946K for the National Mall. I can estimate that the crowd at the Washington Monument is in excess of 100K, but not perhaps bigger than 200K (I leave it to other to work out a better estimate of that using statistical sampling of the full resolution image).
Aerial photos are the best way to do this and the Powerline air photo is the best evidence of the size of the September 12th protest.
To those that wish to minimize the importance of the September 12th March, fine, dream about hope and change all you want - it will not change the reality of the importance of the march.
For the rest of us we have pretty solid evidence that this protest was at least the equal of Obama's coronation in January.
Posted by: deadwood on September 13, 2009 10:01 PMMost of the sites that posted it have now posted corrections, so we can hope that it will eventually fade away.
Posted by: GaryC on September 13, 2009 10:02 PMWingnuttia in action...
Posted by: scottd on September 13, 2009 10:04 PMBut, if someone can find a real photo of the September 12th March, we can do similar analysis and get to the truth of how many attended.
Posted by: deadwood on September 13, 2009 10:12 PMAerial images are also better because they allow for the sampling I wrote about above. What you do is to measure the whole area (easier again with vertical images) and sample smaller areas and multiply to the larger area based on the sample density.
This how folks estimated the size of the great anti war protests of the 1960's and the method has not changed since then. It is also pretty accurate.
As I mentioned also above, there will be police and/or other security aerial images of the crowds. They do this type of crowd monitoring as SOP (as they should - nothing sinister there).
What someone in FOX News or other media (not likely) should be doing is getting those images to do their own independent analysis of the size of the protest. To not do so would be a dishonor to the fine American patriots who turned up yesterday.
In a big way I am shamed by those people who came from all across America to march in DC. I was doing something I could do any weekend (brushing up on my shooting skills at the range), while those folks were making history.
America has never seen anything like this before - ordinary citizens from all walks of life standing up to be heard by a Congress that has forgotten who they serve.
I stand in awe.
Posted by: deadwood on September 13, 2009 11:06 PMRemember people, not to get bogged down in the trolls' attempt to change the subject. Again, the point is that a HUGE NUMBER of people attended the DC rally yesterday and surprised a lot of people with the strength of it. Celebrate and just ignore the silly trolls! It's a great day for America.
Posted by: Michele on September 13, 2009 11:34 PMWhy not go with the truth? Why did they have to lie?
Posted by: Joe Wisconsin on September 14, 2009 03:23 AMHere's the thing- there was a group that was getting petitions. AT THE EVENT, they received over a million. That I believe is the most reliable number.
Two last things! One, I'm a Democratic-Republican, so don't even think about calling me a republican.
Two, why don't they hire a couple austistic children to fly in a helicopter over large groups and tell us how many people there were? Everytime there's a large event I wonder about that. If a child has the gift to look at something and tell you how many there are, then they should be able to do that for people.
That's not *me* saying this. That's a comparison of the pictures, when overlay with the USA Today estimate graphic.
was a success. About 60-70 people turned out...seniors, families and children covering the 4 corners. We had a few passing drivers offer us an extended middle finger but the thumbs up and honking supporters far outnumbered them. There is a lot more discontent with Big Government and Big Taxation than the liberals admit. Posted by: john425 on September 14, 2009 09:01 AM
Have you seen the pictures of places after liberal demonstrations?
From any pictures you look at, there are a MASSIVE amount of people who attended. By any estimate, from any source, the numbers surpass any Million Mom or Million Man march.
Do not get dragged into number debates. It's the message that matters.
But more importantly, whether the message is understood and acted upon.
Posted by: Chris on September 14, 2009 09:13 AMPennsylvania Avenue has six driving lanes and two parking lanes as well as wide sidewalks. Therefore the area for the walk is about 100 feet wide.
A crowd moving at a leisurely pace will go about 2 miles per hour.
According to the D.C. Park Service, a tightly packed crowd has a density of 1 person per 2.5 square feet. A moving crowd, even a densely packed one, would tend to have less density than that--let's say 1 person per 4 square feet.
Given the above, a group of people would cover 2mph x 100ft x 5280ft/mi = 1,056,000 sq. ft. per hour. With a density of 1 person per 4 sq. ft., 264,000 people per hour would pass any point along the route.
So, if there were really just 60-70,000 people [and remember, this supposedly included ALL--i.e. even those that did not arrive in time for the march] it would have taken less than 15 minutes to cross the starting point. A look at the time lapse photos shows that this is absurd. If it took longer than 15 minutes then the estimate is low. If it took an hour and a half, then it is WAY low, and 400,000 would be a better estimate of the number who marched.
Here is the link to judge for yourself Time Lapse Photos
Posted by: Bill on September 14, 2009 09:31 AMDid they leave a huge pile of trash like the left did at Obama's inauguration? No they didn't.
The significance of the leftist posts here is that they know they are beginning to lose. They are freaked out because conservatives have never mobilized like this.
I also think they don't have a way to counter it. Calling us racists isn't going to be a good strategy, but they'll try it because they don't know what else to do.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 14, 2009 09:50 AMExcerpt:
"This was not a small rally. It was also not, in comparison with something like the 2006 pro-immigration protests, a particularly large rally. It was a business-as-usual sort of rally. Mock the protesters at your peril: business as usual suddenly isn't so good for Democrats these days, and the sentiments of the 70,000 people who marched on Washington surely mirror those of millions more sitting at home. They were done a disservice by being represented by a liar like Kibbe."
2 mph (3 ft/sec) is actually a pretty good pace for a crowd of people including children and older people and carrying signs. We'll go with it, but it's an upper limit.
A crowd going at that pace isn't going to be packed at 4 sq feet per person. There's actually quite a bit of research literature on this subject that shows a densely flowing crowd is going to have a density of about 1 per sq meter (11 sq feet) or less. We'll go with 11 to give you the benefit of the doubt. There are plenty of videos showing protesters along Penn Ave so you can form your own judgment, but it sure looks like lower density to me.
We'll go with your estimate of 100 feet for the width of the column of protestors. I actually think that might be a bit low, but I'll discuss that later.
So with all that in mind, we can calculate the number of people that will pass a fixed point per minute. That works out to 1582/min. Check my math if you like.
So how long did it take the whole crowd to pass a fixed point on Penn Ave? We can look at the youtube video you mentioned earlier. The crowd starts moving past the intersection at Freedom Plaza around 0:14 into the video. They've all passed the intersection around 0:36 -- so about 22 sec. You can easily count the frame rate yourself -- it's 2.5 fps, so 55 frames. The guy who made the video says it's about 60 sec between frames, although the rate varies quite a bit. (Despite what he says, it looks like the interval is shorter during the march -- but we'll go with what he says.) So that means the entire crowd passed a single reference point in about 55 min. Multiply that by 1582 (see above) and you get 87000 people marching down Penn Ave.
Now maybe Penn Ave is a little wider (it has wide sidewalks). Maybe it took a little longer to march out of Freedom Plaza (without a timestamp, the video is unreliable). So maybe there could be up to 150,000 in that march.
Or maybe the density is lower and the crowd was walking slower (check the closeup videos yourself). It could be lower than 87,000.
That's why I've said the crowd was probably between 50 - 150K. There's no way it could be 200K. And, of course, 1 million is just wingnut fantasy.
But I'm glad to see you're willing to work with data instead of just repeating unreliable sources who just say the crowd sure looked big.
There is a Senate amendment being voted on right now that would strip ACORN of federal funds.
"Until a full investigation is launched into ACORN, no taxpayer money should be used to fund its activities. A vote in favor of my amendment is a vote in favor of the taxpayer and a vote against the status quo."
How 'bout that? I eagerly await the ACORN defenders.
Posted by: Gary on September 14, 2009 02:20 PMIt was great! Posted by: Patrice on September 14, 2009 03:51 PM
Posted by: Gary on September 14, 2009 04:46 PM
I am quite amused that Boyscoutboy, Jenson (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives)and others wish to believe that we are a marginal movement.
Works for me.
Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberal Blowhards on September 14, 2009 05:37 PMI have read/heard from several sources (who are not mainstream, such as the UK Daily Guardian) that the number of people at this event approached the Inauguration earlier this year. Numbers approaching 2 million (likely inflated) were stated. It appears that there were between 500,000 and 1.3 million.
Soup - shame on Powerline if they showed 1997 Promise Keepers photos without explaining. They were no better than the DailyKos or the Huff Post there.
Posted by: KDS on September 14, 2009 05:48 PMYou wouldn't be making stuff up, would you?
Can you tell us who any of those "other sources" might be?
Posted by: scottd on September 14, 2009 07:08 PMBut that gives this recent event too much credit. It was not a spontaneous outpouring of joy at the election of a groundbreaking leader, and it was not passionate opposition to needless slaughter of children. It was a corporate PR event, organized by a well-known corporate PR firm, and deserves the same mention as the similarly-sized crowds which filled football stadiums this past weekend.
Any blame for exaggeration of the crowd size goes to the corporate PR firm which organized it. Their flack stood up and lied in public, exaggerating the size of the crowd by a factor of twenty or so, and also lied about ABC News having agreed with his false estimate. ABC News promptly exposed his lie, and no one has provided any credible evidence to dispute the DC Fire Department's estimate of the crowd size.
Of course we saw pictures of birthers there; birthers are just 'baggers who've moved one-quarter inch to the right on our scale of political extremism. Teabaggers deny the legitimacy of President Obama's policies; birthers deny President Obama's legitmacy outright. A 'bagger claims President Obama, a moderate Democrat, is some Marxist-socialist-Commie; a birther claims he was not born in Hawai'i; each has exactly the same amount of evidence for the claim.
If you want us to stop enjoying calling you teabaggers, then stop servicing corporate PR flacks -- flacks so incompetent they destroy the impact of their own staged PR event with their own outrageous lies.
Posted by: tensor on September 14, 2009 09:24 PMThat empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot they drool over would be so proud.
Posted by: Hinton on September 14, 2009 10:52 PMZero media. Posted by: julietkilo on September 15, 2009 07:03 AM
Even if you were correct, unless your ideas are threatened, why bother?
To his credit -- and unlike the Times (NY) or the Times (LA) or the Times (Seattle) or NBC or ABC or CBS or MSNBC or CNN -- he acknowledged last week's ACORN scandal in which ACORN criminals in three or four cities encouraged Geithner-lite tax cheating and child prostitution. But Ross said the cause of the ACORN con was conservatives' disrespect for government. What ACORN criminals did was a consequence or a reflection of conservative concerns about big government and taxation.
Listen to the Ross rant at mynw.com's archives. Start with his tease at 0910, go to his aria at 0935, then savor a dessert of slander at 1010.
Then call KIRO. Don't pack guns and picket KIRO's offices, as SeattleJew is going to do with Glenn Beck, but let KIRO and Ross know that we aren't going to take it anymore. We've been smeared by the left-wing slime machine for fifty years; that's more than enough.
Posted by: Whoppers with cheese on September 15, 2009 10:52 AMMr. Ward -
Check the excerpt from Karshner's article, via Vanity Fair, about the Kennedy's war on William Manchester. Note that the article recites Manchester's litany of anti-Dallas bigotry. Manchester tried to imply that JFK was killed by Texas conservatism. In fact, JFK was killed by a left-wing crypto-commie Castro lover who was a lot like you. Oswald's politics were far closer to Manchester's than to H.L. Hunt's, although Hunt bankrolled part of the buying of fraudulent JFK-LBJ votes by Texas Democrats in 1960.
And Manchester's nonsense about Dallas schoolkids cheering JFK's assasination? Debunked and disproved years ago, which doesn't prevent Vanity Fair from repeating it now.
Here's the excerpt linking Oswald to the right. Not once does this 2009 story tie Oswald to the left where he belonged:
Eventually, Manchester had to go to Dallas. Once there, he walked everywhere, including the entire five-mile motorcade route, from Love Field onto Main and then Houston and Elm Streets, past the Texas School Book Depository Building, searching for spectators and, in Dealey Plaza, possible snipers' nests.
He discovered deep political enmities that had simmered at the time of the assassination, not just against the Kennedys but among the Democrats as well. Indeed, that's what had compelled Kennedy's trip to Dallas in the first place: John B. Connally, the conservative Democratic governor, was at war with the more liberal Democratic senator Ralph W. Yarborough. Even a formidable Texas politician like Vice President Johnson couldn't put out the oil fire the two men had ignited. Kennedy didn't want to lose the state in the upcoming '64 election, so he'd agreed to go to Dallas in an attempt to heal the rift.
Manchester also discovered that Dallas "had become the Mecca for medicine-show evangelists ... the Minutemen, the John Birch and Patrick Henry Societies, and the headquarters of [ultra-conservative oil billionaire] H. L. Hunt and his activities."
"In that third year of the Kennedy presidency," Manchester wrote, "a kind of fever lay over Dallas country. Mad things happened. Huge billboards screamed, 'Impeach Earl Warren.' Jewish stores were smeared with crude swastikas....Radical Right polemics were distributed in public schools; Kennedy's name was booed in classrooms; corporate junior executives were required to attend radical seminars." A retired major general ran the American flag upside down, deriding it as "the Democrat flag." A wanted poster with J.F.K.'s face on it was circulated, announcing "this man is Wanted" for--among other things--"turning the sovereignty of the US over to the Communist controlled United Nations" and appointing "anti-Christians ... aliens and known Communists" to federal offices. And a full-page advertisement had appeared the day of the assassination in The Dallas Morning News accusing Kennedy of making a secret deal with the Communist Party; when it was shown to the president, he was appalled. He turned to Jacqueline, who was visibly upset, and said, "Oh, you know, we're heading into nut country today."
Manchester discovered that in a wealthy Dallas suburb, when told that President Kennedy had been murdered in their city, the students in a fourth-grade class burst into applause. For Manchester, who revered Kennedy, such responses, encountered throughout Dallas, were deeply offensive and would influence the book he was about to write.
Manchester also learned that in 1963 there had been 110 murders in Dallas--"Big D"--in what he described as the city's "dark streak of violence." "Texas led the United States in homicide, and Big D led Texas," he wrote. He would come to believe that Dallas's charged political climate had been a factor in the assassination, helping to further unhinge the already unstable Lee Harvey Oswald.
Posted by: Whoppers with cheese on September 15, 2009 10:57 AMWhy do you suppose that is?
Kennedy was both elected and offed by liberals because their party was (and is) the most malleable and easily manipulable to corruption and payola, and because they are all jealous of anyone who will not play by their rules. Liberals are unhinged wiggoes (Tensor, Boyscout, Jenson, Scottd et al) whose lives run on fake sentiment, falsehood, and pretense.
JFK was a lousy president (all show and dishonest substance) who caused more trouble than he corrected (sound familiar?) and who set the stage for Johnson by getting his silly head blown half off. Maybe the liberals will solve our problem again by giving us Biden. Wouldn't hurt (America that is).
Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberal Blowhards on September 15, 2009 11:23 AMhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html
So you progressives are getting all wee-weed up about last weekend's event - it is what it was.
Your policies are losing and the proof is that the latest Rasmussen poll shows that 54% say that the more people learn about Obama/Congress's health insurance reform, the less they like it.
ACORN is your pride and joy of providing the inside edge and they are corrupt through and through and it won't go away as long as Obama is office - they are his baggage. Not surprising that you don't want to talk about this.
But you couldn't do that. Instead, you come up with the same tired article from the Daily Mail. Except the article from the Mail keeps changing. They first reported "up to 2 million", then revised it to "1 million", and then "as many as 1 million" -- never mentioning that they were revising the article and never attributing that estimate to anyone. Who knows what they will say tomorrow?
Earlier, you were quick to offer a photograph of another rally as proof of your delusion.
And you've mentioned "other sources", but you can't come up them.
You'll obviously believe what you want and it doesn't matter much to me. You have no credibility.
Posted by: scottd on September 15, 2009 12:42 PMJoin ACORN experts Theresa Kaleky and Jim Miller as they offer our intrepid filmmakers tips on how to use government monies to setup a "school" where the underage children from El Salvador would be passed off as students rather than child prostitutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s8w9GEpSzw&feature=player_embedded#t=109
Posted by: Underage Prostitutes for ACORN on September 15, 2009 01:46 PMPosted by: Gary on September 15, 2009 01:48 PM
As for ACORN's useful idiot, Dave Ross, use this address to set him straight, via his boss: rarquette@973kiro.com.
========
JFK: The left gets all wee-wee'd up and wets itself with excitement when Seymour Hersh goes after Bush, the CIA, or our armed forces. The left loved it when Hersh took down My Lai and Abu Ghraib.
But about ten years ago he went off the leftwing reservation or plantation and went after JFK. The left was not amused. That's why Hersh's Dark Side of Camelot is the indispensable book about Kennedy's culture of corruption and manipulation. Like our present president, JFK made our "independent" "objective" "free" press complicit in lies.
A useful follow-up, by W.J. Rorabaugh of UW, is a recent book about the 1960 election. Rorabaugh recaps Hersh's story about JFK's stealing of West Virginia and about Democrat dirty tricks, but then he shows, precinct by precinct, how Democrats and dead Democrats stole Texas and Illinios in the general election.
Posted by: RICO ACORN on September 15, 2009 02:07 PMIt goes beyond just 54%... It's 70/20 opposed to Obamacare. Source: Zogby International. Overwhelmingly people are opposed to ObamaCare, forcing people to buy insurance, or a public option. VERY FEW want this, but our exalted leader and his acolytes will try to force it on us anyway... Fascism lives and breathes on the Left!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 15, 2009 02:29 PMThe mainstream media will not be able to avoid covering this story now. I bet there is a lot of misery in the White House right now. Wonder what kind of damage control they'll concoct.
We don't have to make this stuff up, do we?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 15, 2009 03:33 PMI suspect tomorrow's edition will also be on the West coast. I wonder if those two great young Americans visited the Seattle office.
I think it's too late. As leftists are fond of saying, "the whole world's watching".
If the Obama Adminstration has ties to Acorn,(and they almost undoubtably do), this could be their Waterloo, (or Watergate).
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 15, 2009 04:14 PMYou're right--I biased them to estimate on the low side to make the point that 60-70,000 was a ridiculously low estimate.
Let's look at the assumptions:
1. The width of Pennsylvania Avenue. I used an estimate of 100 ft., even though I have it could actually be as wide as 150 ft. If so, then my estimate would be 50% higher than what I used.
2. The walking speed of the marchers. Average walking speed is 3-4 miles/hr. This is 15-20 minutes/mile. 2 miles per hour is 30 minutes/mile. Most people will not walk that slowly unless they are restrained by crowds. There was a crowd restraining the speed, which is why I used 2 miles per hour. Had the crowd not been as large, the walking speed would have been closer to 3MPH.
3. A density of a tightly packed crowd, such as that on Freedom Plaza before the march, is about 1 person per 2.5 square feet. This is per the D.C. Park Service. I used a density of 1 person per 4 square feet to take account of the fact that the crowd started moving. This is even though they moved through a bottleneck in moving out of Freedom Plaza and down Pennsylvania Avenue.
This assumption is where your largest bias slipped in. You used 1 person per 11 square feet. This would mean that on a 100 ft wide street there were only 30 people across. I'm surprised you could even put that forward without bursting out laughing! I know I did when I read it.
You say "There are plenty of videos showing protesters along Penn Ave so you can form your own judgment, but it sure looks like lower density to me." This is totally irrelevant unless you are looking at videos from the start of the march, which is the point at which we are measuring the size. Looking at the time lapse video, the density of the crowd did not change much at the start of the march. It may have become a bit less dense later, but as I said, that is irrelevant.
Finally, how long did the march take? Some media, including the NY Times, said "the magnitude of the rally took the authorities by surprise, with throngs of people streaming from the White House to Capitol Hill for more than three hours". I used 1 1/2 hours. You used 55 minutes. You say that the video is 2.5 frames per second. No, it is 3 frames per second. So that is an additional 20% understatement in your "assumptions"
So, I certainly could have used:
1. 150 ft as the width of Pennsylvania Avenue.
2. Used a speed of greater than 2MPH--say 2.5MPH.
3. Used a density of somewhat more than 1 person per 4 square ft--say 3.5 square ft.
4. Used 3 hours rather than 1.5 hours for the length of the march.
However, I view my original estimates as reasonable estimates with a provision for adverse deviation [i.e as estimating on the low side]. Using the estimates above would have generated an estimate of 1.7 million. I'll stick with my 400,000 estimate, however if Pennsylvania Ave is really 150 ft wide, that would increase the estimate to 600,000.
And as a last note, this is, again, ONLY the people included in the march. Many more came later and are not included in this estimate.
Posted by: Bill on September 15, 2009 05:50 PMSo, I guess since he had a 70% approval rating in February, and 49% now, that what... all of the people who used to approve of him noticed that he's black and decided to become racists?
That is how stupid the opposition has become.
Bring it on.
Liberalism is a mental disorder in your case it seem like OCS big time.
Posted by: KDS on September 15, 2009 08:14 PMNot @105. Here's what you wrote:
I have read/heard from several sources (who are not mainstream, such as the UK Daily Guardian) that the number of people at this event approached the Inauguration earlier this year.
You and soup are badly confused.
Posted by: scottd on September 15, 2009 08:43 PMOn Sunday, you blathered about the Daily Mail story, which you misread to claim that an estimate of up to 2 million was attributed to Homeland Security. Of course, even the Mail wasn't able to keep its story straight because they later revised their story twice, first to "1 million", then "as many as 1 million", and they deleted any reference to Homeland Security. So one of your main sources has a changing story that's wildly out of synch with other media reports and can't be attributed to any authoritative source.
You also claimed to have heard that the DC police and Parks Service had estimated crowds of 1.5 and 1.2 million. (They didn't.) You didn't bother to verify these claims -- they were what you wanted to hear and that was good enough for you.
It's clear that you have something to prove and that makes you an unreliable analyst who looks for data to match what he wants to see and disregards anything that contradicts his preformed conclusion.
You used 1 person per 11 square feet. This would mean that on a 100 ft wide street there were only 30 people across
Only if they are marching in perfectly aligned ranks with exactly 3 feet between each row -- which they weren't. Really, Bill -- I thought you were smarter.
Like I said, there's research literature on this subject. If you want to play junior photoanalyst, go read it instead of making up numbers yourself. There might be places in the march where the density is greater than 1/sq meter, but then the speed is going to be slower. There's an inverse relation between crowd speed and density. a crowd with 1 person per 4 sq feet will be moving slowly.
No, it is 3 frames per second.
No it isn't. Count it out yourself -- you can clearly see every time the image updates. Count out 100 frames and note the time stamp. If you can't count that high, try counting to 10, but you'll get a less accurate answer.
So, I certainly could have used:
1. 150 ft as the width of Pennsylvania Avenue.
2. Used a speed of greater than 2MPH--say 2.5MPH.
3. Used a density of somewhat more than 1 person per 4 square ft--say 3.5 square ft.
Sure you could have -- you can use any numbers you want to convince yourself of the conclusion you want to reach. You'd just be wrong. Read some of the literature on this subject.
4. Used 3 hours rather than 1.5 hours for the length of the march.
Like I said, you can use whatever numbers you want, but that's not what the youtube timelapse video shows. The author said the video covered 3.5 hours. The march took up a little over half of the running time (55%), so that establishes 120 minutes as an upper limit if we assume a constant frame interval. However, the author notes that he used a much longer interval (3 - 5 min) at the beginning, before the march began, so that means the actual march had to take less than 120 minutes. He said the capture rate during the march was 60 sec so that gives us 55 min for the actual march. So, you can use 3 hours if it makes you feel better -- you'd just be wrong.
Posted by: scottd on September 15, 2009 10:22 PMCBS News:
"Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year"
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml
Didn't the liberals here say it was only gonna cost a tiny amount?
This is another stinking pile that will *not* get passed out of Congress.
Those people are liars, defending the indefensible such as the child prostitution promoting ACORN. No amount of logic and reason will ever change their minds.
Just ignore the trolls.
Posted by: Just Ignore Trolls on September 16, 2009 09:06 AMI think this whole thing might be flat-lining.
Maybe the very, very tiny (what, 13 people?) march on DC Saturday had an effect.
I must add that it isn't being well received by democratics...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on September 16, 2009 11:31 AMOh c'mon! It couldn't have been more than TWO people. They photoshopped in the rest. And if you disagree, well then you are a racist!
Posted by: Deranged Liberal on September 16, 2009 11:55 AMMaxine Waters is demanding that the press investigate the "racial views" of all of us.
Liberals, what's happened you?
And they also said today (after the devastating report on how much it will cost families that they kept secret) that cap-and-trade is off until next year. I think it's off forever.
So...?
Posted by: Gary on September 16, 2009 01:56 PMThe lefties were just doing what they were told. None of them (well, maybe rizzo ;') actually believe the tripe they spew...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on September 16, 2009 02:14 PMIf I was a liberal, I'd be getting pretty PO'd right about now.
"According to reliable sources, Obama administration officials are on their way to Poland and the Czech Republic to deliver very bad news. The administration intends to cancel completely the missile defense sites that had been promised to these governments by the previous administration. This represents a complete capitulation to Russia's Vladimir Putin, who had demanded that the proposed deployments be halted as a price for improved relations. Ironically, the Obama administration, which is appeasing Russia in the hopes that Moscow will help put pressure on Iran, has made this mammoth concession just a few days after Moscow declared that it had no intention of supporting sanctions against Iran."
The man is hell-bent on turning the United States into a subservient nation.
We are going to sell out our allies for nothing.
You're projecting. It seems you are more exercised by this whole thing than I am--you've certainly posted on the issue a lot! I haven't even read half of the posts here, including yours. But if it makes you feel better to believe your assumptions--enjoy!
Posted by: Bill on September 16, 2009 04:09 PMAt least you haven't lost your sense of irony!
Nice chatting with you, Bill!
Posted by: scottd on September 16, 2009 04:56 PMStatus quo on cap and trade? What do you mean? Your side told us cap and trade would cost families $150 a year. Obama knows it will actually cost $1,761 and reduce GDP by 1%.
For what? And besides, why complain to me? I can't stop Congress from passing cap and trade. It is Congress that has decided to put it on the shelf.
And Obama's science adviser says we're heading into a man-made ice age anyway... well... that's what he said in the 70's, when it was cold. Now he says we're all gonna burn up.
And you guys still believe these idiots?
Acid brain means that sinister status quo of earning a living honestly, saving your money and behaving like a decent human being.
Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberal Blowhards on September 17, 2009 02:54 PM