Liberal media caught in another blatant lie: National Mall was FULL during Trump's inauguration

[Edgetho]

I can't open the gigapixel, but what does it show? Does it show two sections completely full and it is able to show you that it is completely full because it's taken from high above? Or it shows some people and you can't see the spaces because their bodies are in the way?

I've not see a SINGLE picture that suggests that the area was full. None of the people defending Trump are showing things, they're just trying to put doubt out there and have nothing.

CNN was as dishonest as EVERYONE ELSE, including the truth. Fox who haven't reported on this don't have a single photo of the place full. What a surprise.

The CNN gigapixel shows the entire Mall as being full to the brim. The only area that is somewhat clear is the Police clearance area. If you zoom in to that part of the mall, you can see people, presumably Cops, sitting at 'desks' in front of what is probably computer screens. You can also see a Police Van clearly marked in the area.

In the very, very back it is somewhat clear but that's right in front of some building that is likely an official area of some kind, so I can imagine they'd keep that area relativel clear/

Otherwise, it's SLAMMED.

So what if the Lying Cocksucker had more people at his innegeration? His supporters live 5 minutes away. I live a thousand miles away and I hate big cities. With New Yawk Shitty topping the list and Washington DC a close 2nd.

Not the point. The point is -- the DISGUSTING FILTH used fake photos and dishonest press to denigrate Trump.

Like that's a surprise. They've been doing it steady for the last 18 Months and dimocrap scum wanna make us believe the DISGUSTING FILTH is all of the sudden going to start being fair now that he's POTUS??!!

You gotta be a special kind of dumbass to believe that

 

[Edgetho]

Oh, now for the attacks. Again, you've shown NOTHING to suggest that these pictures are fake, and yet you've pulled out the insults. Well done.

Look at this, then tell us you can't see the difference. You say that and you're either a dishonest scumbag or stupid beyond belief.

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

 

[Faun]

Why? Because the people are edging one end of each section. So, from one side it looks like more people than on the other side. However do the facts add up? Yes, they do. Where there are less people in one, there are less people in the other, you just look at each section, there isn't much difference.

The issue is people who are trying to make out Trump is right, when he's clearly A) wrong and B) Childish.

I see what you're saying...but...

If these sections back sections are almost empty..

View attachment 108177

Then why do these look equally full? (the white in the back is the very back section, which does seem less than full)

View attachment 108178

Again, perspective. There is NOTHING abnormal with those photos showing the same thing appearing differently.

If you take a picture from in front where all the people are gathered, and you take it from lower down, you'll see less floor space.

The second picture is a lot, LOT lower than the first.

Perspective doesn't change the fact that the gigapixel shows those two sections completely full, yet the overhead photo shows that first section partially full and the second one nearly empty. Doesn't match at all. The very back section is empty on both, but those two in front of that are completely different than the overhead one. I'm not saying it was as full as Obama's, I don't think it was nor do I care about that. But it does show CNN was completely dishonest on the overhead shots in order to insult Trump and everyone that voted for him.

LOLOL

Suuuuure ... angle doesn't change perspective.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

PHOTOS: The Inauguration of President Donald Trump | WTTG

Fox news pictures

See white space? No, you don't? Well, remember, from Trump's position he'd see no white space here.

See the black guy? THE black guy. He is wearing a Hillary hat.

Now, a little higher than Trump, see the white spaces? I sure do.
This is going to be a while before the inauguration.

White space anyone?

\
Still white space

Not even Fox, right wing media who actually posted a report called "Mainstream media screams in pain as Trump becomes president (they know he beat them, too)"

Mainstream media screams in pain as Trump becomes president (they know he beat them, too)

So, Fox make out they're not the mainstream media and they're on Trump's side. And they've spoken nothing about this spat over crowd numbers.

It is a shame that on the Trump Inauguration, there were threats of violence, and there was, which caused many people to stay home, yet on the women's march there was no threats, so more could come out? I am glad that the liberals show their true colors, and it makes future voters hate the liberals even more.

I doubt the threats of violence kept people home, if you were inside that area, it'd be fine, and the violence wasn't ever going to affect many people. The cold and rain was more likely to keep people home.

And then there are some people who are totally clueless what is happening in their nations capital. I personally live in Virginia and there was no way I was going to mix with the thugs who live in that Crapital City. While Virginia is concealed carry, you cant bring a weapon into DC(Dysfunctional City) or else go to jail, while protestors who prevented people from exercising their rights to assemble, had nothing done to them. I pray to God that Trump enacts the "Equal Protections Clause" where any concealed license must be accepted in all 50 states and the dysfunctional city.

Protesters block entrance points at Trump inauguration

Protesters block entrance points at Trump inauguration
Hundreds of protesters marched the streets of Washington D.C. to oppose President Trump

 

[Edgetho]

Suuuuure ... angle doesn't change perspective.

So does reality, scumbag

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

 

[Faun]

Why? Because the people are edging one end of each section. So, from one side it looks like more people than on the other side. However do the facts add up? Yes, they do. Where there are less people in one, there are less people in the other, you just look at each section, there isn't much difference.

The issue is people who are trying to make out Trump is right, when he's clearly A) wrong and B) Childish.

I see what you're saying...but...

If these sections back sections are almost empty..

View attachment 108177

Then why do these look equally full? (the white in the back is the very back section, which does seem less than full)

View attachment 108178

Again, perspective. There is NOTHING abnormal with those photos showing the same thing appearing differently.

If you take a picture from in front where all the people are gathered, and you take it from lower down, you'll see less floor space.

The second picture is a lot, LOT lower than the first.

Perspective doesn't change the fact that the gigapixel shows those two sections completely full, yet the overhead photo shows that first section partially full and the second one nearly empty. Doesn't match at all. The very back section is empty on both, but those two in front of that are completely different than the overhead one. I'm not saying it was as full as Obama's, I don't think it was nor do I care about that. But it does show CNN was completely dishonest on the overhead shots in order to insult Trump and everyone that voted for him.

I can't open the gigapixel, but what does it show? Does it show two sections completely full and it is able to show you that it is completely full because it's taken from high above? Or it shows some people and you can't see the spaces because their bodies are in the way?

I've not see a SINGLE picture that suggests that the area was full. None of the people defending Trump are showing things, they're just trying to put doubt out there and have nothing.

CNN was as dishonest as EVERYONE ELSE, including the truth. Fox who haven't reported on this don't have a single photo of the place full. What a surprise.

The right is now armed with ... alternatve facts.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh, now for the attacks. Again, you've shown NOTHING to suggest that these pictures are fake, and yet you've pulled out the insults. Well done.

Look at this, then tell us you can't see the difference. You say that and you're either a dishonest scumbag or stupid beyond belief.

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

The difference is in the perspective of the respective cameras.
Please provide the overhead shot that shows a full mall.

 

[ptbw forever]

Lots of liberals have been stridently insisting that the Mall was half empty or worse during Trump's inauguration. They point to photos displayed by the New York Times and other liberal rags as "proof", showing most of the Mall empty.

But CNN has developed a photo technique they call "Gigapixel", which takes a photo of a very large area, with such precision that you can zoom in and see individual faces. They used it while Trump was giving his inaugural address.

Unfortunately, CNN was so eager to show off their new technology, they forgot to get their stories straight with the other media outlets first. You have to go to the website and pivot the picture back and forth. And when you do, at one end you can see Trump standing at the dais alone, giving his speech to the audience. And if you swing it the other way and zoom out, you can see that the National Mall is COMPLETELY FULL except for two small sections that were 75% full. That's easily a million people.

No wonder Trump's people ripped the media a new one (again). The NYTimes was manufacturing fake news (again) designed to make Trump look bad (again), and they got caught red-handed (again).

A small line near the bottom of the NYT article explains the lie: They admit that their half-empty picture was taken nearly an hour before Trump was inaugurated, and that people were still coming in. Why they call that picture "Trump's Inauguration" is not explained.

When you ask someone how many people came to Trump's inauguration, you're not asking how many showed up an hour early. You're asking how many were there. The NYT tried to substitute the hour-earlier picture for an actual picture of the inauguration. But CNN showed an actual picture of the inauguration, in terrific detail... thus blowing the New York Times' lie out of the water.

For the New York Times' fake picture, see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-crowd.html?_r=0

And for CNN's true picture taken an hour later, see Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump .

Remember to zoom the CNN picture in and out so you can see Trump giving his speech (which pinpoints what time it was taken), and you can also see that the entire Mall is jammed to the rafters.

The problem here is PERSPECTIVE.

People trying to show something from different angles and pretending the image should look the same, is rather retarded.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-crowd.html?_r=0

This article says "The footage on this page was captured 45 minutes before each oath of office." 45 minutes before the inauguration took place.



This video from MSN shows what was happening. They say the Inauguration is about to start, and then say in the next 10-15 minutes then show the crowds from above, and there are clearly large spaces. They even said "we do see a lot of white space there", at the time there was no debate about this, there was no issue. Why would he say that? They then go and take a shot from Capitol Hill and the area looks full.

Why? Perspective, that's why. What Trump could see was a full Mall. What the cameras from behind and MUCH HIGHER UP could see was lots of empty space.

But the issue here isn't one of how many people came. The issue is of a petty and childish president who made an issue out of something that no one would really care about otherwise.
And also an issue of those who support him who will BELIEVE anything he says, regardless.

Not ONE person who has said Trump is right has shown a photo from behind with all that space filled in. Not one.

That picture clearly doesn't match what you can easily see in the op's CNN link. Try again.

He's a progressive zealot. It would be against his religion to admit the media is biased and lies in order to promote his Agenda.

Oh, now for the attacks. Again, you've shown NOTHING to suggest that these pictures are fake, and yet you've pulled out the insults. Well done.

You didn't look at the link in the 1st post of this thread, did you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

PHOTOS: The Inauguration of President Donald Trump | WTTG

Fox news pictures

See white space? No, you don't? Well, remember, from Trump's position he'd see no white space here.

See the black guy? THE black guy. He is wearing a Hillary hat.

Now, a little higher than Trump, see the white spaces? I sure do.
This is going to be a while before the inauguration.

White space anyone?

\
Still white space

Not even Fox, right wing media who actually posted a report called "Mainstream media screams in pain as Trump becomes president (they know he beat them, too)"

Mainstream media screams in pain as Trump becomes president (they know he beat them, too)

So, Fox make out they're not the mainstream media and they're on Trump's side. And they've spoken nothing about this spat over crowd numbers.

It is a shame that on the Trump Inauguration, there were threats of violence, and there was, which caused many people to stay home, yet on the women's march there was no threats, so more could come out? I am glad that the liberals show their true colors, and it makes future voters hate the liberals even more.

I doubt the threats of violence kept people home, if you were inside that area, it'd be fine, and the violence wasn't ever going to affect many people. The cold and rain was more likely to keep people home.

And then there are some people who are totally clueless what is happening in their nations capital. I personally live in Virginia and there was no way I was going to mix with the thugs who live in that Crapital City. While Virginia is concealed carry, you cant bring a weapon into DC(Dysfunctional City) or else go to jail, while protestors who prevented people from exercising their rights to assemble, had nothing done to them. I pray to God that Trump enacts the "Equal Protections Clause" where any concealed license must be accepted in all 50 states and the dysfunctional city.

Protesters block entrance points at Trump inauguration

Protesters block entrance points at Trump inauguration
Hundreds of protesters marched the streets of Washington D.C. to oppose President Trump

Well, I wouldn't want to live in DC either, but the issues around DC are nationwide and no one is dealing with them.

 

[theHawk]

Why? Because the people are edging one end of each section. So, from one side it looks like more people than on the other side. However do the facts add up? Yes, they do. Where there are less people in one, there are less people in the other, you just look at each section, there isn't much difference.

The issue is people who are trying to make out Trump is right, when he's clearly A) wrong and B) Childish.

I see what you're saying...but...

If these sections back sections are almost empty..

View attachment 108177

Then why do these look equally full? (the white in the back is the very back section, which does seem less than full)

View attachment 108178

Again, perspective. There is NOTHING abnormal with those photos showing the same thing appearing differently.

If you take a picture from in front where all the people are gathered, and you take it from lower down, you'll see less floor space.

The second picture is a lot, LOT lower than the first.

Perspective doesn't change the fact that the gigapixel shows those two sections completely full, yet the overhead photo shows that first section partially full and the second one nearly empty. Doesn't match at all. The very back section is empty on both, but those two in front of that are completely different than the overhead one. I'm not saying it was as full as Obama's, I don't think it was nor do I care about that. But it does show CNN was completely dishonest on the overhead shots in order to insult Trump and everyone that voted for him.

I can't open the gigapixel, but what does it show? Does it show two sections completely full and it is able to show you that it is completely full because it's taken from high above? Or it shows some people and you can't see the spaces because their bodies are in the way?

I've not see a SINGLE picture that suggests that the area was full. None of the people defending Trump are showing things, they're just trying to put doubt out there and have nothing.

CNN was as dishonest as EVERYONE ELSE, including the truth. Fox who haven't reported on this don't have a single photo of the place full. What a surprise.

Its a 360 view of the Mall, although it is off the side a bit. It clearly shows sections are completely full compared to that overhead one from early in the morning. There are some sections half full, and the very back one is empty, but it clearly does not match the other photo supposedly taken "during" the inauguration. Its clear that it wasn't as full as Obama's, but it certainly wasn't half empty which is what the MSM wants you to believe.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why? Because the people are edging one end of each section. So, from one side it looks like more people than on the other side. However do the facts add up? Yes, they do. Where there are less people in one, there are less people in the other, you just look at each section, there isn't much difference.

The issue is people who are trying to make out Trump is right, when he's clearly A) wrong and B) Childish.

I see what you're saying...but...

If these sections back sections are almost empty..

View attachment 108177

Then why do these look equally full? (the white in the back is the very back section, which does seem less than full)

View attachment 108178

Again, perspective. There is NOTHING abnormal with those photos showing the same thing appearing differently.

If you take a picture from in front where all the people are gathered, and you take it from lower down, you'll see less floor space.

The second picture is a lot, LOT lower than the first.

Perspective doesn't change the fact that the gigapixel shows those two sections completely full, yet the overhead photo shows that first section partially full and the second one nearly empty. Doesn't match at all. The very back section is empty on both, but those two in front of that are completely different than the overhead one. I'm not saying it was as full as Obama's, I don't think it was nor do I care about that. But it does show CNN was completely dishonest on the overhead shots in order to insult Trump and everyone that voted for him.

I can't open the gigapixel, but what does it show? Does it show two sections completely full and it is able to show you that it is completely full because it's taken from high above? Or it shows some people and you can't see the spaces because their bodies are in the way?

I've not see a SINGLE picture that suggests that the area was full. None of the people defending Trump are showing things, they're just trying to put doubt out there and have nothing.

CNN was as dishonest as EVERYONE ELSE, including the truth. Fox who haven't reported on this don't have a single photo of the place full. What a surprise.

The right is now armed with ... alternatve facts.

They always have been. Joe McCarthy figured that one out and they praised him for it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why? Because the people are edging one end of each section. So, from one side it looks like more people than on the other side. However do the facts add up? Yes, they do. Where there are less people in one, there are less people in the other, you just look at each section, there isn't much difference.

The issue is people who are trying to make out Trump is right, when he's clearly A) wrong and B) Childish.

I see what you're saying...but...

If these sections back sections are almost empty..

View attachment 108177

Then why do these look equally full? (the white in the back is the very back section, which does seem less than full)

View attachment 108178

Again, perspective. There is NOTHING abnormal with those photos showing the same thing appearing differently.

If you take a picture from in front where all the people are gathered, and you take it from lower down, you'll see less floor space.

The second picture is a lot, LOT lower than the first.

Perspective doesn't change the fact that the gigapixel shows those two sections completely full, yet the overhead photo shows that first section partially full and the second one nearly empty. Doesn't match at all. The very back section is empty on both, but those two in front of that are completely different than the overhead one. I'm not saying it was as full as Obama's, I don't think it was nor do I care about that. But it does show CNN was completely dishonest on the overhead shots in order to insult Trump and everyone that voted for him.

I can't open the gigapixel, but what does it show? Does it show two sections completely full and it is able to show you that it is completely full because it's taken from high above? Or it shows some people and you can't see the spaces because their bodies are in the way?

I've not see a SINGLE picture that suggests that the area was full. None of the people defending Trump are showing things, they're just trying to put doubt out there and have nothing.

CNN was as dishonest as EVERYONE ELSE, including the truth. Fox who haven't reported on this don't have a single photo of the place full. What a surprise.

The right is now armed with ... alternatve facts.

They have confirmed their "full retard" bonafides.

 

[Faun]

Suuuuure ... angle doesn't change perspective.

So does reality, scumbag

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

LOLOL

Sure, con...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why? Because the people are edging one end of each section. So, from one side it looks like more people than on the other side. However do the facts add up? Yes, they do. Where there are less people in one, there are less people in the other, you just look at each section, there isn't much difference.

The issue is people who are trying to make out Trump is right, when he's clearly A) wrong and B) Childish.

I see what you're saying...but...

If these sections back sections are almost empty..

View attachment 108177

Then why do these look equally full? (the white in the back is the very back section, which does seem less than full)

View attachment 108178

Again, perspective. There is NOTHING abnormal with those photos showing the same thing appearing differently.

If you take a picture from in front where all the people are gathered, and you take it from lower down, you'll see less floor space.

The second picture is a lot, LOT lower than the first.

Perspective doesn't change the fact that the gigapixel shows those two sections completely full, yet the overhead photo shows that first section partially full and the second one nearly empty. Doesn't match at all. The very back section is empty on both, but those two in front of that are completely different than the overhead one. I'm not saying it was as full as Obama's, I don't think it was nor do I care about that. But it does show CNN was completely dishonest on the overhead shots in order to insult Trump and everyone that voted for him.

I can't open the gigapixel, but what does it show? Does it show two sections completely full and it is able to show you that it is completely full because it's taken from high above? Or it shows some people and you can't see the spaces because their bodies are in the way?

I've not see a SINGLE picture that suggests that the area was full. None of the people defending Trump are showing things, they're just trying to put doubt out there and have nothing.

CNN was as dishonest as EVERYONE ELSE, including the truth. Fox who haven't reported on this don't have a single photo of the place full. What a surprise.

Its a 360 view of the Mall, although it is off the side a bit. It clearly shows sections are completely full compared to that overhead one from early in the morning. There are some sections half full, and the very back one is empty, but it clearly does not match the other photo supposedly taken "during" the inauguration. Its clear that it wasn't as full as Obama's, but it certainly wasn't half empty which is what the MSM wants you to believe.

Again, what picture are you referring to? The picture in your head? Come on, you need to show this stuff.

 

[Edgetho]

The difference is in the perspective of the respective cameras.
Please provide the overhead shot that shows a full mall.

It's an interactive photo. You can do what you want with it. Moron

Trump Inauguration Ratings Second Biggest in 36 Years

And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams, tying with its Election Day coverage for the site’s top event (live stream tallies are typically not apples-to-apples with Nielsen’s strict methodology of counting average viewers, but are still additive). Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well.

 

[Edgetho]

dimocraps are some seriously dishonest scumbag

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

 

[theHawk]

Lots of liberals have been stridently insisting that the Mall was half empty or worse during Trump's inauguration. They point to photos displayed by the New York Times and other liberal rags as "proof", showing most of the Mall empty.

But CNN has developed a photo technique they call "Gigapixel", which takes a photo of a very large area, with such precision that you can zoom in and see individual faces. They used it while Trump was giving his inaugural address.

Unfortunately, CNN was so eager to show off their new technology, they forgot to get their stories straight with the other media outlets first. You have to go to the website and pivot the picture back and forth. And when you do, at one end you can see Trump standing at the dais alone, giving his speech to the audience. And if you swing it the other way and zoom out, you can see that the National Mall is COMPLETELY FULL except for two small sections that were 75% full. That's easily a million people.

No wonder Trump's people ripped the media a new one (again). The NYTimes was manufacturing fake news (again) designed to make Trump look bad (again), and they got caught red-handed (again).

A small line near the bottom of the NYT article explains the lie: They admit that their half-empty picture was taken nearly an hour before Trump was inaugurated, and that people were still coming in. Why they call that picture "Trump's Inauguration" is not explained.

When you ask someone how many people came to Trump's inauguration, you're not asking how many showed up an hour early. You're asking how many were there. The NYT tried to substitute the hour-earlier picture for an actual picture of the inauguration. But CNN showed an actual picture of the inauguration, in terrific detail... thus blowing the New York Times' lie out of the water.

For the New York Times' fake picture, see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump-inauguration-crowd.html?_r=0

And for CNN's true picture taken an hour later, see Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump .

Remember to zoom the CNN picture in and out so you can see Trump giving his speech (which pinpoints what time it was taken), and you can also see that the entire Mall is jammed to the rafters.

At no time was the mall full...

At :46 - :47 there is a cut, the sky gets much darker as it is much later. They did not keep it continuous. Where are the time stamps on it? Conveniently removed.

 

[Theowl32]

Oh, now for the attacks. Again, you've shown NOTHING to suggest that these pictures are fake, and yet you've pulled out the insults. Well done.

Look at this, then tell us you can't see the difference. You say that and you're either a dishonest scumbag or stupid beyond belief.

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

The difference is in the perspective of the respective cameras.
Please provide the overhead shot that shows a full mall.

Blow it out of your fucking faggot ass. You are all fucking liars. You are fucking wastes of life. You stupid fucking moron.

Go home. Your fucking lying kuuunt witch lost.

You fucking petulant whiny pussy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The difference is in the perspective of the respective cameras.
Please provide the overhead shot that shows a full mall.

It's an interactive photo. You can do what you want with it. Moron

Trump Inauguration Ratings Second Biggest in 36 Years

And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams, tying with its Election Day coverage for the site’s top event (live stream tallies are typically not apples-to-apples with Nielsen’s strict methodology of counting average viewers, but are still additive). Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well.

It's an interactive photo. You can do what you want with it. Moron

Except of course, match the overhead shot in question, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh, now for the attacks. Again, you've shown NOTHING to suggest that these pictures are fake, and yet you've pulled out the insults. Well done.

Look at this, then tell us you can't see the difference. You say that and you're either a dishonest scumbag or stupid beyond belief.

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

The difference is in the perspective of the respective cameras.
Please provide the overhead shot that shows a full mall.

Blow it out of your fucking faggot ass. You are all fucking liars. You are fucking wastes of life. You stupid fucking moron.

Go home. Your fucking lying kuuunt witch lost.

You fucking petulant whiny pussy.