根據計算,100萬人遊行隊伍要從維多利亞公園排到廣東;200萬人遊行則要排到泰國。
順道一提香港15~30歲人口約莫100出頭萬人。以照片人群幾乎都是此年齡帶來看,兩個數字都是明顯誇大太多了。
另一個可以參考的是1969年的Woodstock Music & Art Fair,幾天內湧進40萬人次,照片看起來也是滿山滿谷的人。(http://sites.psu.edu/…/upl…/sites/851/2013/01/Woodstock3.jpg)
當年40萬人次引發驚人的大塞車,幾乎花十幾個小時才逐漸清場。
而香港遊行清場速度明顯快得多。
順道一提,因此運動而認定「你的父母不愛你」的白痴論述也如同文化大革命時的「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」般開始出現:
https://www.facebook.com/SaluteToHKPolice/videos/350606498983830/UzpfSTUyNzM2NjA3MzoxMDE1NjMyMTM4NjY3MTA3NA/
EVERY MAJOR NEWS outlet in the world is reporting that two million people, well over a quarter of our population, joined a single protest.
.
It’s an astonishing thought that filled an enthusiastic old marcher like me with pride. Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly not true.
.
A march of two million people would fill a street that was 58 kilometers long, starting at Victoria Park in Hong Kong and ending in Tanglangshan Country Park in Guangdong, according to one standard crowd estimation technique.
.
If the two million of us stood in a queue, we’d stretch 914 kilometers (568 miles), from Victoria Park to Thailand. Even if all of us marched in a regiment 25 people abreast, our troop would stretch towards the Chinese border.
.
Yes, there was a very large number of us there. But getting key facts wrong helps nobody. Indeed, it could hurt the protesters more than anyone.
.
For math geeks only, here’s a discussion of the actual numbers that I hope will interest you whatever your political views.
.
.
DO NUMBERS MATTER?
.
People have repeatedly asked me to find out “the real number” of people at the recent mass rallies in Hong Kong.
.
I declined for an obvious reason: There was a huge number of us. What does it matter whether it was hundreds of thousands or a million? That’s not important.
.
But my critics pointed out that the word “million” is right at the top of almost every report about the marches. Clearly it IS important.
.
.
FIRST, THE SCIENCE
.
In the west, drone photography is analyzed to estimate crowd sizes.
.
This reporter apologizes for not having found a comprehensive database of drone images of the Hong Kong protests.
.
But we can still use related methods, such as density checks, crowd-flow data and impact assessments. Universities which have gathered Hong Kong protest march data using scientific methods include Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University.
.
.
DENSITY CHECKS
.
Figures gathered in the past by Hong Kong Polytechnic specialists using satellite photo analysis found a density level of one square meter per marcher. Modern analysis suggests this remains roughly accurate.
.
I know from experience that Hong Kong marches feature long periods of normal spacing (one square meter or one and half per person, walking) and shorter periods of tight spacing (half a square meter or less per person, mostly standing).
.
.
JOINERS AND SPEED
.
We need to include people who join halfway. In the past, a Hong Kong University analysis using visual counting methods cross-referenced with one-on-one interviews indicated that estimates should be boosted by 12% to accurately reflect late joiners. These days, we’re much more generous in estimating joiners.
.
As for speed, a Hong Kong Baptist University survey once found a passing rate of 4,000 marchers every ten minutes.
.
Videos of the recent rallies indicates that joiner numbers and stop-start progress were highly erratic and difficult to calculate with any degree of certainty.
.
.
DISTANCE MULTIPLIED BY DENSITY
.
But scientists have other tools. We know the walking distance between Victoria Park and Tamar Park is 2.9 kilometers. Although there was overspill, the bulk of the marchers went along Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, which is about 25 meters (or 82 feet) wide, and similar connected roads, some wider, some narrower.
.
Steve Doig, a specialist in crowd analysis approached by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), analyzed an image of Hong Kong marchers to find a density level of 7,000 people in a 210-meter space. Although he emphasizes that crowd estimates are never an exact science, that figure means one million Hong Kong marchers would need a street 18.6 miles long – which is 29 kilometers.
.
Extrapolating these figures for the June 16 claim of two million marchers, you’d need a street 58 kilometers long.
.
Could this problem be explained away by the turnover rate of Hong Kong marchers, which likely allowed the main (three kilometer) route to be filled more than once?
.
The answer is yes, to some extent. But the crowd would have to be moving very fast to refill the space a great many times over in a single afternoon and evening. It wasn’t. While I can walk the distance from Victoria Park to Tamar in 41 minutes on a quiet holiday afternoon, doing the same thing during a march takes many hours.
.
More believable: There was a huge number of us, but not a million, and certainly not two million.
.
.
IMPACT MEASUREMENTS
.
A second, parallel way of analyzing the size of the crowd is to seek evidence of the effects of the marchers’ absence from their normal roles in society.
.
If we extract two million people out of a population of 7.4 million, many basic services would be severely affected while many others would grind to a complete halt.
.
Manpower-intensive sectors of society, such as transport, would be badly affected by mass absenteeism. Industries which do their main business on the weekends, such as retail, restaurants, hotels, tourism, coffee shops and so on would be hard hit. Round-the-clock operations such as hospitals and emergency services would be severely troubled, as would under-the-radar jobs such as infrastructure and utility maintenance.
.
There seems to be no evidence that any of that happened in Hong Kong.
.
.
HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
.
To understand that, a bit of historical context is necessary.
.
In 2003, a very large number of us walked from Victoria Park to Central. The next day, newspapers gave several estimates of crowd size.
.
The differences were small. Academics said it was 350,000 plus. The police counted 466,000. The organizers, a group called the Civil Rights Front, rounded it up to 500,000.
.
No controversy there. But there was trouble ahead.
.
.
THINGS FALL APART
.
At a repeat march the following year, it was obvious to all of us that our numbers were far lower that the previous year. The people counting agreed: the academics said 194,000 and the police said 200,000.
.
But the Civil Rights Front insisted that there were MORE than the previous year’s march: 530,000 people.
.
The organizers lost credibility even with us, their own supporters. To this day, we all quote the 2003 figure as the high point of that period, ignoring their 2004 invention.
.
.
THE TRUTH COUNTS
.
The organizers had embarrassed the marchers. The following year several organizations decided to serve us better, with detailed, scientific counts.
.
After the 2005 march, the academics said the headcount was between 60,000 and 80,000 and the police said 63,000. Separate accounts by other independent groups agreed that it was below 100,000.
.
But the organizers? The Civil Rights Front came out with the awkward claim that it was a quarter of a million. Ouch. (This data is easily confirmed from multiple sources in newspaper archives.)
.
.
AN UNEXPECTED TWIST
.
But then came a twist. Some in the Western media chose to present ONLY the organizer’s “outlier” claim.
.
“Dressed in black and chanting ‘one man, one vote’, a quarter of a million people marched through Hong Kong yesterday,” said the Times of London in 2005.
.
“A quarter of a million protesters marched through Hong Kong yesterday to demand full democracy from their rulers in Beijing,” reported the UK Independent.
.
It became obvious that international media outlets were committed to emphasizing whichever claim made the Hong Kong government (and by extension, China) look as bad as possible. Accuracy was nowhere in the equation.
.
.
STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN
.
At universities in Hong Kong, there were passionate discussions about the apparent decision to pump up the numbers as a strategy, with the international media in mind. Activists saw two likely positive outcomes.
.
First, anyone who actually wanted the truth would choose a middle point as the “real” number: thus it was worth making the organizers’ number as high as possible. (The police could be presented as corrupt puppets of Beijing.)
.
Second, international reporters always favored the largest number, since it implicitly criticized China. Once the inflated figure was established in the Western media, it would become the generally accepted figure in all publications.
.
Both of the activists’ predictions turned out to be bang on target. In the following years, headcounts by social scientists and police were close or even impressively confirmed the other—but were ignored by the agenda-driven international media, who usually printed only the organizers’ claims.
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION
.
Skip this section unless you want additional examples to reinforce the point.
.
In 2011, researchers and police said that between 63,000 and 95,000 of us marched. Our delightfully imaginative organizers multiplied by four to claim there were 400,000 of us.
.
In 2012, researchers and police produced headcounts similar to the previous year: between 66,000 and 97,000. But the organizers claimed that it was 430,000. (These data can also be easily confirmed in any newspaper archive.)
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION TOO
.
Unless you’re interested in the police angle. Why are police figures seen as lower than others? On reviewing data, two points emerge.
.
First, police estimates rise and fall with those of independent researchers, suggesting that they function correctly: they are not invented. Many are slightly lower, but some match closely and others are slightly higher. This suggests that the police simply have a different counting method.
.
Second, police sources explain that live estimates of attendance are used for “effective deployment” of staff. The number of police assigned to work on the scene is a direct reflection of the number of marchers counted. Thus officers have strong motivation to avoid deliberately under-estimating numbers.
.
.
RECENT MASS RALLIES
.
Now back to the present: this hot, uncomfortable summer.
.
Academics put the 2019 June 9 rally at 199,500, and police at 240,000. Some people said the numbers should be raised or even doubled to reflect late joiners or people walking on parallel roads. Taking the most generous view, this gave us total estimates of 400,000 to 480,000.
.
But the organizers, God bless them, claimed that 1.03 million marched: this was four times the researchers’ conservative view and more than double the generous view.
.
The addition of the “.03m” caused a bit of mirth among social scientists. Even an academic writing in the rabidly pro-activist Hong Kong Free Press struggled to accept it. “Undoubtedly, the anti-amendment group added the extra .03 onto the exact one million figure in order to give their estimate a veneer of accuracy,” wrote Paul Stapleton.
.
.
MIND-BOGGLING ESTIMATE
.
But the vast majority of international media and social media printed ONLY the organizers’ eyebrow-raising claim of a million plus—and their version soon fed back into the system and because the “accepted” number. (Some mentioned other estimates in early reports and then dropped them.)
.
The same process was repeated for the following Sunday, June 16, when the organizers’ frankly unbelievable claim of “about two million” was taken as gospel in the majority of international media.
.
“Two million people in Hong Kong protest China's growing influence,” reported Fox News.
.
“A record two million people – over a quarter of the city’s population” joined the protest, said the Guardian this morning.
.
“Hong Kong leader apologizes as TWO MILLION take to the streets,” said the Sun newspaper in the UK.
.
Friends, colleagues, fellow journalists—what happened to fact-checking? What happened to healthy skepticism? What happened to attempts at balance?
.
.
CONCLUSIONS?
.
I offer none. I prefer that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This is just a rough overview of the scientific and historical data by a single old-school citizen-journalist working in a university coffee shop.
.
I may well have made errors on individual data points, although the overall message, I hope, is clear.
.
Hong Kong people like to march.
.
We deserve better data.
.
We need better journalism. Easily debunked claims like “more than a quarter of the population hit the streets” help nobody.
.
International media, your hostile agendas are showing. Raise your game.
.
Organizers, stop working against the scientists and start working with them.
.
Hong Kong people value truth.
.
We’re not stupid. (And we’re not scared of math!)
同時也有3部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過0的網紅alex lam,也在其Youtube影片中提到,初夏來臨,全城投入運動狂熱!荃新天地於2020年6月27日至7月12日期間舉行夏日運動及戶外用品展,為你搜羅逾百款運動服飾及戶外用品,當中包括潮流運動服裝品牌Adidas、Reebok、Speedo,知名戶外用品品牌Columbia、Timberland、Gregory、Outdoor Resear...
columbia outlet香港 在 alex lam Youtube 的最讚貼文
初夏來臨,全城投入運動狂熱!荃新天地於2020年6月27日至7月12日期間舉行夏日運動及戶外用品展,為你搜羅逾百款運動服飾及戶外用品,當中包括潮流運動服裝品牌Adidas、Reebok、Speedo,知名戶外用品品牌Columbia、Timberland、Gregory、Outdoor Research、Blueplace、The Overlander及Bodysac等,還有大熱戶外拍攝產品品牌DJI。多款精選貨品以超筍優惠4折發售,快來狂掃運動及戶外用品,為健康夏日作好準備!
驚喜禮遇一浪接一浪!S⁺ REWARDS會員專享「夏日三重賞」,推廣期間於荃新天地指定運動服裝及用品商戶以電子貨幣消費或憑S+ REWARDS點數可享多項驚喜禮遇,賺取雙倍獎賞點數、即場換領英皇戲院電影禮券及以S+ REWARDS點數優先預留電子現金券,讓你盡情選購心水運動及戶外用品!此外,活動更會舉行「網上直播Crazy Sale」,透過荃新天地Facebook直播網上競售多款精選產品,各位荃新天地Facebook粉絲可即時網上下單購買,讓你足不出戶輕鬆購物,一同感受運動狂熱!
集合各大運動品牌 一站式搜購至抵運動服飾及戶外用品
近來全城都掀起運動熱潮,不少人都利用空餘時間做運動強身健體,增強抵抗力。「工欲善其事,必先利其器」,運動前當然要準備好適合的服飾及用品,荃新天地夏日運動及戶外用品展雲集逾百款運動服飾及戶外用品,當中包括潮流運動服裝品牌Adidas、Reebok、Speedo,知名戶外用品品牌Columbia、Timberland、Gregory、Outdoor Research、Blueplace、The Overlander及Bodysac等,以及大熱戶外拍攝及航拍產品品牌DJI,由服飾、鞋子、露營用品以及戶外拍攝器材應有盡有!展銷期間,精選貨品更以超筍優惠4折發售,當中包括Adidas SUPERSTAR SLIP-ON、Timberland男裝SKAPE PARK皮革牛津鞋、Columbia男女裝Omni-Tech防水透氣外套、The Overlander GREGORY DAY經典小背囊等,身為購物達人的你又怎可錯過?場內亦設近期大熱戶外拍攝必備產品 - DJI航拍機展銷攤位,專人即場示範航拍及戶外拍攝最新產品,包括御 DJI Mavic Air 2 - 首款能以 120 Mbps 碼流錄製 4K/60fps 影片的航拍機、OSMO Pocket三軸口袋雲台相機等,更以會場優惠價發售,高空角度及戶外遊玩打卡拍照無難度!
columbia outlet香港 在 賢賢的奇異世界 Youtube 的最佳解答
【都市傳說】 十個傳得最兇的都市傳說 Part2,時空穿梭者,鬧鬼廣告,飛頭降的真相,哭泣男孩的詛咒,米奇老鼠自殺影片, 【淘寶開箱】 不為人知的都市傳說, HenHenTV奇異世界#32,
上一集:【都市傳說】 十個鬧得最兇的都市傳說,八尺大人,俄羅斯剝奪睡眠實驗, 【淘寶開箱】 世界奇異檔案系列, HenHenTV奇異世界#29 :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXoVbHK8fnc
淘寶鏈接:https://click.alibaba.com/rd/0q7l24mu
產品鏈接按這裡~: https://click.alibaba.com/rd/d4uuh2ks
各位大家好,歡迎來到HenHenTV的奇異世界,我是Tommy,今天我們來繼續說我們的十個鬧得最兇的都市傳說下半部,如果你是第一次看我的影片,記得訂閱HenHenTV,我每個星期最少會上傳一到兩個奇異影片,探討一些奇異的題材,希望你們會喜歡!
那我們來開始下半部的五個都市傳說吧~你準備好了嗎?
6.時空穿梭的人
大家有看過這張照片吧?這是一張在1941年在加拿大British Columbia州裡面的一個城市叫South Fork,這是真實的歷史照片,並不是改圖的,可以看另外一個角度的照片也可以拍到這個男人,看起來他和其他人格格不入,他帶著太陽眼鏡,穿著T-shirt加一個外套,手裡還拿著一架好像是數碼相機的物體,但他真的是時空穿梭者嗎?答案是:No.先說那個太陽眼鏡,很多人認為那個時代還沒有有太陽眼鏡,其實最早太陽眼鏡發明於500年前,開始流行太陽眼鏡是在二戰時期,他帶著的太陽眼鏡其實在那個時代已經有了,大家看一看這張照片,裏面女子戴著的太陽眼鏡就是和他一樣的,還有那個所謂的T-shirt, 其實是一隊叫Montreal Maroon冰上曲棍球的球衣,他可能是那個球隊的粉絲,也有可能是他們其中一個隊員,至於那個相機,很多人以為那個時候的相機應該是很大的,其實在1941年那個時候,相機已經是這樣的了~而照片中那個男子拿著的那架相機是這樣的。。。所以不是什麽數碼相機,雖然可以證明他不是,但是我並不否認時空旅行者的存在。
7.鬧鬼的鐵路廣告
在1993年轟動香港的九廣鐵路廣告,大家應該有聽過或看過吧~開始的時候影片裡面只有六個小孩,但是在最後的時候出現了第七個小孩在最後,而且有人說第二個小孩的嘴角在留著血,這個廣告過後這六個小孩都死了。。。由於有人死所以廣告禁播了,聽起來真的很恐怖,但是那是真的嗎?其實九廣鐵路沒有禁播這個廣告,更沒有做出任何回應,因為根本沒有那麼一回事,第一,拍攝時其實一共用了二十多個小孩,而且最後才剪了六個進去,但是也有人分析一共有八個小孩,只是我沒有看到有那麼多啦~至於第七個在最後出現的女孩,很有可能是剪接的時候沒有注意到而剪了進去,這一群小孩在1991拍攝了這個廣告過後,更另外再拍了2個廣告,而且這個廣告在1991年就播放了,而且在1991年聖誕節時還邀請了全部小孩出席,這是當時的剪報。
8.飛頭降的真相
我也有一個影片是講關於降頭的,其中一個就是最惡毒的飛頭降,在網上大家有看過在籠子裡面抓到的巫師的飛頭被抓到,而且下半身是不知道是什麼物體,看起來有點像蜥蜴。。那這裡有個疑問,為什麼它不飛的?而是一直連在地上呢?原來這個並不是什麼飛頭降,而是在巴基斯坦一間叫Karachi 動物園,裡面的一個表演叫Mumtaz begum, 所謂的Mumtazbegum就是一個半女人半動物的神,可以看透未來和有預知能力 (雖然裡面那個是男人扮的啦~)你們可以在youtube裡面找Mumtaz begum,會找到類似那個飛頭降的影片,而且那個表演者叫Murad ali,在籠子裡露出頭和狐狸的下半身,給予人們算命,哦~原來是算命師來的。。。
9. 哭泣男孩的詛咒
在英國轟動一時的火災事件,很多消防員說在火災現場裡面都會看到哭泣的男孩畫像,而且唯有這個畫像沒有被燒毀,而且也有傳聞,凡是有哭泣男孩畫像的家裡都會無故著火,更傳聞那個畫像裡面的男孩,是因為是被詛咒而會令到身邊的東西著火,被他家人拋棄而懷恨在心而燒死了他的父母,等等的傳說。那個詛咒是真的嗎?但其實哭泣的男孩並不是同一個男孩,而是畫家畫了很多不同的男孩,再來就是這個系列的畫賣得太好了~一共賣出五萬幅畫,以這樣的數量來看,英國應該會有五萬宗火災才對啊?有人有嘗試用火燒這幅畫,發覺的確是不容易的著火,原因是大部分的畫像都是用繩子掛在牆上,所以繩子會先短掉然後掉在溫度比較低的地上,而且這個畫像的背後是用非常好的板塊,所以沒有被燒毀並不出奇。加上那時太陽報和鏡報在競爭著,太陽報為了贏競爭對手而炒作這個詛咒的可能性也很高!
10. 米奇老鼠的恐怖影片
在youtube上面如果你找Suicide mouse,自殺米奇老鼠的影片,你就會看到這個詭異的影片,米奇老鼠露出詭異的笑容,背景音樂非常的詭異,加上米奇老鼠不停的走動,到了後期,米奇老鼠的臉部開始變得很詭異,以非人的速度在奔跑著,聽說有人看完過後去自殺了。。。但真相是怎樣的呢?第一:這個影片聲稱是來自於1930年代,由霍華特,就是迪斯尼的創辦人畫的,但是在1928開始的霍華特所畫的米奇老鼠的風格根本不同,而且大家也知道迪斯尼一直以來都是做給小孩看的卡通,所以並不可能會製造這麼恐怖又沒意義的影片,那這個影片其實是來自於一個外國都市傳說網站叫Creepypasta,為了增加可信度,他們才製造出這樣的影片,只要會動畫製作的人也可以做得出來。
都市傳說的真偽,有時真的很難去分辨,但是如果願意拿些時間去尋找資料,再加上自己的分析,很多時候我們會找到破綻的,雖然如此,還有很多都市傳說不知道是真是假,我還是很喜歡看,今天我又在淘寶上面買了兩本書,一本是關於都市傳說,一本是關於暗網的,走!我們開箱去~
今天的影片就到這裡,如果你喜歡這個影片和頻道,記得按贊和分享出去,謝謝大家的訂閱,我們下個奇異世界見,bye bye
Credit to Free Horror background: Green Screen Outlet
#都市傳說 #都市傳說真相 #奇異檔案 #淘寶開箱 #時空旅行者 #米奇老鼠自殺影片 #哭泣的男孩
#飛頭降的真相 #鬧鬼的鐵路廣告#淘寶書籍 #HenHenTV奇異世界 #HenHenTV
columbia outlet香港 在 Smart Travel Youtube 的最佳貼文
酒井Shisui Premium Outlet網羅了121個品牌,當中包括8家「日本初」及20家「關東初」的Outlet店,其中有兩個名字會令一眾港女雙眼發光,那就是mercibeaucoup,和Ne-net。這兩間首次在關東Outlet現身的店舖,面積雖不算大,但有齊男女及童裝,當季新品即場7折,過季貨更是3折起跳,風褸和連身裙等二、三百蚊港紙分分鐘已經有交易,店內有一整個飾物陳列架,角落還有少量ZUCCa和kuskus,絕不欺場。場內亦有港人最愛的agnés b. voyage、UGG Australia、New Balance和GAP等,絕對足夠讓閣下散盡家財,早知閣下來到最後一站可能銀彈不足,這裏準備了7-11櫃員機和外幣兌換,不愁銀根短缺,只怕你時間不夠。