As I kept reading about "preliminary satellite estimates" of the crowd at the lefty Ed Schultz rally yesterday, I wanted to know what the term meant. It is repeated verbatim at countless left wing blogs, but it seems to have originated with a statement from a person named Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars:

Preliminary satellite estimates put the crowd size at 175,000 to 200,000 at about noon EST.

My preliminary opinion is that it's pure political hogwash wrapped in an official-sounding lie. Like making something up and attributing it to "top scientists."

PJM's Charlie Martin is also skeptical, and has a good question:

Where do they get these satellite estimates? PJM has been completely unsuccessful finding satellite companies that can give us these sorts of pictures on demand; there isn't a satellite passing over Washington, D.C., any time you want one.

What I'd like to know is why she would call them "preliminary." There either are available data from satellites or there are not. If someone has already done preliminary estimates based on that data, then presumably there is another, more definite estimate soon to come. How could the analysis and estimating be going on without anyone anywhere identifying whoever is supposed to be doing the estimating or citing any actual satellite source? There is a video showing Joe Madison speaking to the crowd about a "satellite image" alleged by the organizers to exist, but nowhere is anyone quoted by name who actually saw it, or even who says he saw it.

So where is it? Freepers are saying it does not exist, and that if it did, it would be all over the Internet. But what is all over the Internet is Nicole Belle's claim of "preliminary satellite estimates."

That there are a lot of gullible people ready and willing to believe anything that sounds as if it confirms what they want to hear does not surprise me. But for them to be claiming to rely on satellite data when no one has provided a single confirming reference or link, that's too much. I think it's worse than vandalizing Asimov, and I got pretty worked up about that, so writing this post seemed to be the least I could do. However, unlike the case of the butchered Asimov essay, this problem is not so easily solved, for there really was an original Asimov essay, but I am completely unable to find any satellite image of the rally.

It's odd that the lefties who are citing it and claiming estimates based on it can't seem to provide a copy, isn't it?

So I am forced to ask some questions.

Since no one has the image, what happened? Why would the satellite fail to provide it? Precisely what did this satellite look like?

Because if there was something hovering over the crowd (and surely there must have been, or why all the commotion?) then how do we even know it was a satellite?

To leave no stone unturned in my search for the truth, I'm going stick out my neck and pose a few more questions.

Might it be that what Ms. Belle thought was a satellite actually looked more like this?

And can this "Nicole Belle" prove to everyone's satisfaction that she has not added that e to her name in the hope of disguising the fact that she's related to Art Bell? (All of this confusion could easily be cleared up!)

So, much as I'd like to give her the preliminary benefit of the doubt, there's that old saying that goes "Trust but Verify!"

I just want to see the data.

Hell, it might be of assistance in evaluating this mysterious animated gif (link from Charlie Martin) contrasting the Glenn Beck rally with the Ed Shultz rally.

I have a preliminary explanation as to why they are so different. Notice the huge swath of lawn on the left hand side they deliberately kept clear by moving away the hundreds of thousands of people that whatever flying object it was estimated?

I think the most obvious explanation (which may be the Mother Of All Explanations) is that they wanted to keep it clear as a landing pad.

I admit that this is speculation on my part, but I consider it my duty to be as helpful as possible in clearing up this baffling mystery, and I remain open to alternative theories.