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

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
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.
 
Last edited:
Lots of liberals have been stridently insisting .

The Dictionary Trolls Kellyanne Conway By Tweeting Out The Definition Of Fact

"A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality,"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary tweeted after Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway tried to rebrand the Trump administration's false statements as "alternative facts."…
The typical liberal-fanatic reply I was expecting: "OMG I can't refute any of it! But I hate it anyway! Quick, change the subject to um, ah, uhh, Kellyanne Conway!"
 
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.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Looks packed all the way back to me. May well be a matter of perspective. But this is the perspective Trump had.
 
Looks packed all the way back to me. May well be a matter of perspective. But this is the perspective Trump had.
I sniffed around a bit online, and one explanation I saw was that it's "an optical illusion due to the angles".
Okay, but there was no further explanation.
Huh??

"Changing the angle" can make the million-plus people shown by CNN, disappear? Leaving only a tenth that number?

Maybe the Russians made them vanish? :biggrin:
 
Looks packed all the way back to me. May well be a matter of perspective. But this is the perspective Trump had.
I sniffed around a bit online, and one explanation I saw was that it's "an optical illusion due to the angles".
Okay, but there was no further explanation.
Huh??

"Changing the angle" can make the million-plus people shown by CNN, disappear? Leaving only a tenth that number?

Maybe the Russians made them vanish? :biggrin:
Yeah, I dunno. No responses here so far.
.
 
I sniffed around a bit online, and one explanation I saw was that it's "an optical illusion due to the angles".

Okay, but there was no further explanation.
.

And that may be the case. But this was Trump's perspective, and it looks packed. It's like the media is asking Trump "who do you believe, us or your lying eyes?"

The good news is CNN's picture is pretty damn good, so it should be easy to get a pretty solid count.
 
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.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


Brilliant reply! Your command of the language is putting everybody to shame here!

Do you do windows, too?
 
Screen grab-

Trump Inaug.png
 
Lots of liberals have been stridently insisting .

The Dictionary Trolls Kellyanne Conway By Tweeting Out The Definition Of Fact

"A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality,"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary tweeted after Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway tried to rebrand the Trump administration's false statements as "alternative facts."…

Still trying to defend the lie even though it was blown out of the water.

How beautifully liberal!
 
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.
 
Zoomed into the farthest sections:

Trump Inaug.png
Trump Inaug2.png

That certainly looks a LOT different than the MSM has been portraying the Inauguration crowds...
 
Last edited:
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.

From the gigapixel:

Clearly there are huge swaths of the mall that were unoccupied.


Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 4.41.59 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 4.41.42 AM.png
Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 4.41.28 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 4.40.54 AM.png

Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 4.40.13 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 4.39.15 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-01-23 at 4.39.15 AM.png
    83.4 KB · Views: 37
  • Screen Shot 2017-01-22 at 4.10.52 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-01-22 at 4.10.52 PM.png
    71.9 KB · Views: 46
Looks like a packed mall to me. MSM busted again.

Probably looked like a full house to Trump too. Film directors have used that perspective trick for years to make crowd scenes look bigger. That doesn't negate all that empty space in the time lapsed video from the opposite angle.
 

Forum List

Back
Top