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

[theHawk]

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.

The one shown over and over.

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

Or you just going to keep playing dumb?

 

[Edgetho]

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.

The only section that is half-full is the Police, Security section. Zoom in on it and you can clearly see the Police and the admittance gates.

The back area is most likely for restrooms and medical. They would keep that clear so people wouldn't have to fight through a crowd to get medical attention or go to the restroom.

dimocraps are lying scum. ALL of them.

The Long, the tall, the short and the small. The old the young the new and them all.

One thing dimocraps ALL have in common -- They lie. They lie like a dog barks or a pig oinks

dimocraps are scum. No point in trying to avoid it. It's just the way it is

 

[Faun]

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.

They can't because no such image exists. The mall was never full.

 

[Edgetho]

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

The one shown over and over.

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

Or you just going to keep playing dumb?

Why would you think he's 'playing'??

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

"I am right, I know I am right"

"Okay, please provide some evidence"

"Go fuck yourself"

This, people, is a partisan hack argument.

 

[Faun]

dimocraps are some seriously dishonest scumbag

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

Too bad the gigapixel image doesn't view the mall from overhead. This does and reveals to mall was never full...

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The one shown over and over.

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

Or you just going to keep playing dumb?

Certainly not playing dumb. What I'm trying to get is for you to show that A) these pictures are fake and B) evidence of what wasn't fake.

Right now there is nothing.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Sure......try harder.

 

[Edgetho]

No where in that video is Trump present, on the stand.

dimocraps are lying scum.

THAT is the point of this exercise. NOT how many people were there or how many people watched.....

It is about how dimocrap SCUM lie like a dog.

And you keep proving our point.

 

[bodecea]

Trump won. these fake news stories the Pedo-Friendlies and assorted gimps keep spamming the boards with are as irrelevant as they are now. They are only good for the occasional comedy relief and should largely just be ignored or just mocked, and not to be used for adult discussion. See STYFE's posts for the level of 'content' appropriate for these joke threads.

Yes Drumplethinskin won. Who has said he didn't?

 

[Faun]

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.

LMAO

So PBS is in on the conspiracy too??

PBS, BBC, NBC, and CNN are all colluding together?? They have each show an overhead shot showing a half empty mall.

But wait, it gets better ... since you believe that shot was altered... prove it... show any overhead shot from that aerial view where the mall is full.....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

(Interactive Gigapixel Image HERE)

Inauguration interactive pic. No white spaces.

Yep. And the BS we're hearing from libs that it's the angle is easily disproven by using the zoom feature.
The place was packed.

 

[Faun]

(Interactive Gigapixel Image HERE)

Inauguration interactive pic. No white spaces.

Yep. And the BS we're hearing from libs that it's the angle is easily disproven by using the zoom feature.
The place was packed.

Don't just say it, peove it... post the aerial view showing a packed mall...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The depths that the retarded Trump supporters will go to in his defense is simply amazing.

Did none of you watch the event live?

I had it on and only watched intermittently but heard comments on the crowd size being much smaller than in the past and saw overhead live footage showing the exact same crowd as in the photos.

How do you all imagine the feed was edited in real time across all broadcasts?

You dopes have set a new standard of just absolute retardation with this one.

So you still havent looked at the gig

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.

With the GigaPixal image you can zoom in and it clearly shows a packed house.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The depths that the retarded Trump supporters will go to in his defense is simply amazing.

Did none of you watch the event live?

I had it on and only watched intermittently but heard comments on the crowd size being much smaller than in the past and saw overhead live footage showing the exact same crowd as in the photos.

How do you all imagine the feed was edited in real time across all broadcasts?

You dopes have set a new standard of just absolute retardation with this one.

So you still havent looked at the gig

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.

With the GigaPixal image you can zoom in and it clearly shows a packed house.

thanks

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Use Gigapixel and you can zoom in and clearly see the place was packed.

 

[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.

LMAO

So PBS is in on the conspiracy too??

PBS, BBC, NBC, and CNN are all colluding together?? They have each show an overhead shot showing a half empty mall.

But wait, it gets better ... since you believe that shot was altered... prove it... show any overhead shot from that aerial view where the mall is full.....

It has been proven, several times now. You just refuse to acknowledge it, because you are a progressive zealot.

Just like your signature, CNN claiming Trump is mocking a disability. Trump never mocked his disability, he mocked morons like him that can't answer questions honestly. He did the same gesture for Ted Cruz and a general. He also had no idea the man had a disability, he made fun of him for trying to change his own story about Muslims celebrating on 9/11, a story he reported on then tried to backtrack.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

Obama's was full, because 95% of the blacks, and 50% of the White Guilt, morons wanted to see history being made, where Hope and Change was going to fundamentally transform America, with the redistribution of wealth going to the liberal elites. After 4 years, even the Obamaphone lade woke up, but those liberal, goosestepping, koolaid
drinking, low information, mind numbed, useful idiots, just kept the faith.

Obama’s 2nd Inaugural Will Likely Draw Fewer to Capital

 

[Picaro]

Trump won. these fake news stories the Pedo-Friendlies and assorted gimps keep spamming the boards with are as irrelevant as they are now. They are only good for the occasional comedy relief and should largely just be ignored or just mocked, and not to be used for adult discussion. See STYFE's posts for the level of 'content' appropriate for these joke threads.

Yes Drumplethinskin won. Who has said he didn't?

You and the rest of the mentally challenged need to be constantly reminded of it.

Trump won. Hillary didn't, and she is never going to be President.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

(Interactive Gigapixel Image HERE)

Inauguration interactive pic. No white spaces.

Yep. And the BS we're hearing from libs that it's the angle is easily disproven by using the zoom feature.
The place was packed.

Don't just say it, peove it... post the aerial view showing a packed mall...

The gigapixel says you're full of shit.