Anti war protest in D.C.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about the US, but if the police in the UK say a protest march "probably" reached 100,000, you can be pretty certain reached at least 200,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation for the US:
if the media in the US says a liberal left wing protest march "probably" reached 100,000, you can be pretty certain at least 200 were there [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

In any case the crowd I saw would not have filled a corner of Wembley stadium. There’s no way there was 100K+ at this one event

[theweatherman]

no way dude.
I was there and it was WAY more than 10k. I'd wager 100k at least.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
no way dude.
I was there and it was WAY more than 10k. I'd wager 100k at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

How dare you doubt him. Didn't you read the thread? He knows more than the Cheif of Police.

You silly liberal.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Translation for the US:
if the media in the US says a liberal left wing protest march "probably" reached 100,000, you can be pretty certain at least 200 were there

[/ QUOTE ]

The "media" was quoting the police. Are you suggesting they made the quote up?

[cardcounter0]

CNN News reported the Washington turnout as 2000.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

There was also turn outs in SF and LA.

Here are the reports for LA:
Local CBS & ABC reported that 'hundreds' attended.
Local Fox News reported "ten thousand".
The AP is reporting LAPD says '15,000'.

An estimate from a person there who works with large concert venues said - 60,000.

Trusting the media to accurately report something like a 'number' is crazy -- they can excitely say "hundreds", "thousands", "almost a million" with the same blank stare and smile on their face.

[elwoodblues]

Liberal law enforcement bias.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no way dude.
I was there and it was WAY more than 10k. I'd wager 100k at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

How dare you doubt him. Didn't you read the thread? He knows more than the Cheif of Police.

You silly liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I before E, except after C. Or did you go to a government school?


Furthermore, being in a large crowd it is IMPOSSIBLE to judge the size of it. So I don't see why "people who were there" are claiming they know how many people there were.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
So I don't see why "people who were there" are claiming they know how many people there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much better to hear from people who weren't there. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I before E, except after C. Or did you go to a government school?

[/ QUOTE ]

Typos, like [censored], happen. But I am a proud (or not so proud, after last Saturday's game at Wisconsin) graduate of a government school. Go Blue.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, being in a large crowd it is IMPOSSIBLE to judge the size of it. So I don't see why "people who were there" are claiming they know how many people there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) You should call slamdunkpro to the carpet then, as he claimed to know there 10k, not 100k.

2) If anyone would know, it would be the Chief of Police, right? Wouldn't he have the most resources in place to gauge such things? Isn't it his job to know?

Maybe he sucks at his job, I have no idea. But given two numbers, one from an internet message board poster, the other from the Chief of Police, which is more likely to be correct? It doesn't seem close to me.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I don't see why "people who were there" are claiming they know how many people there were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much better to hear from people who weren't there. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the point. The point is that NO ONE knows exactly how many people are in the crowd. People IN the cannot give an accurate number because they CANNOT comprehend the size while inside the crowd. The only way to measure the crowd is through aerial observations and statistics. But even then it cannot compensate for the motivation of the people for being present in DC at the time.