Moderator: Community Team

The same percentage as are at any other public rally on any issue.heavycola wrote:scotty - a final figure then - how many morons do you estimate were there that day, in total?
Studies have shown* that the average IQ at liberal public rallies is around 150, while the average IQ at a conservative rally is around 75. The threshold for morons is 80. Fact.Night Strike wrote:The same percentage as are at any other public rally on any issue.heavycola wrote:scotty - a final figure then - how many morons do you estimate were there that day, in total?

heavycola wrote:Studies have shown* that the average IQ at liberal public rallies is around 150, while the average IQ at a conservative rally is around 75. The threshold for morons is 80. Fact.Night Strike wrote:The same percentage as are at any other public rally on any issue.heavycola wrote:scotty - a final figure then - how many morons do you estimate were there that day, in total?
*courtesy of the Heavycola Institute for Made-Up Statistics, 2010
do you guys believe like Joe Biden that “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.”qwertylpc wrote:do u guys believe like sarah palin that the flintstones was a documentary![]()


You obviously don't seem to understand what I'm talking about.Night Strike wrote: Talk about selective photo editing. Those trees in the bottom left of the top picture are maybe 1/4 of the way from the actual front of the field when you compare it to the bottom picture. If you (Snorri) will accept that there were maybe 100,000 people there from the photo you posted, how many people must there be when looking at the bottom photo? 5 times as many? 10 times?
Even if you apply the crowd density of the photo you provided to the one of the full crowd, 100,000 people is way too small.Snorri1234 wrote:You obviously don't seem to understand what I'm talking about.Night Strike wrote: Talk about selective photo editing. Those trees in the bottom left of the top picture are maybe 1/4 of the way from the actual front of the field when you compare it to the bottom picture. If you (Snorri) will accept that there were maybe 100,000 people there from the photo you posted, how many people must there be when looking at the bottom photo? 5 times as many? 10 times?
The angle of the photo makes a tremendous difference. The photo you guys keep bringing up is absolute shite for counting the number of people there. It makes an estimate anywhere between 50k and 500k plausible.
The point of my photo was not to show an estimate, but to show that crowd-density makes a huge difference. I didn't guess it was 100k based on that photo, I wanted to point out that a bigger figure requires a higher crowd density. It is incredibly important for an estimate.
here is a video of what it looked like under the treesNight Strike wrote:
Talk about selective photo editing. Those trees in the bottom left of the top picture are maybe 1/4 of the way from the actual front of the field when you compare it to the bottom picture. If you (Snorri) will accept that there were maybe 100,000 people there from the photo you posted, how many people must there be when looking at the bottom photo? 5 times as many? 10 times?

