Honestly, yea. 100% coverage is being fucked with to make things seem worse than they are but I doubt there are even 3,000 people in that photo. May well have been over 6,000 people there and I sure hope there was but the photo is not a gotcha.

Grab group of ten people, further away so they’re more dense, then count out ten of those are you mentally paste it around the photo. That will be 100 people. Then take that and do the same thing ten more times and you’ll get 1,000.

Everywhere else for sure was crushing it, and honestly I feel like even 6,000 is a pretty great turnout for Utah, no?

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

I get the theory of the counting, I guess I'm biasing because I understand the shape of that field. The picture is probably 5/8 the field that was packed.

Along with the elevation. It's really hard to picture except from direct above, as the field drops out significantly. I couldn't even see the speaker from my vantage.

[–] kofe@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

I saw some articles claiming a few hundred in my area, which isn't one of the largest but still a major city, so yeah, 6k is great

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Even if it did, how did they count everyone? Are there some drone software capable of counting people in an area or in a picture?

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 22 hours ago

You can make estimates based on crowd density and area. There are online tools for it.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 22 hours ago

National park service provided the numbers?

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 22 hours ago

Fake news is there to ensure that we don't get real news lol