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

[theHawk]

It appears that no one is disputing the photo.

The question is, would the MSM deceptively edit the crowd images? Is this another NBC vs Zimmerman the white Hispanic 911 calls?

NBC issues apology for edited Zimmerman 911 call

The question is, could they edit crowd images live?

The other question is, if you look at other photos, and compare them, do you see the white space that is similar, the answer is yes.

Here's Obama's from 2009

Here's Trump's. You clearly see lots of people in both, but behind you see white space. But there's LESS white space here than in this picture

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.

Outside of the claims of the photographers, I can't know for sure when those photos were taken.

I'm not saying Trump is right. I'm saying that no honest person can say for sure.

I do know that partisans are going to believe anything that supports their political agendas.
.

Thing is, there's a time laps video and it shows the empty spaces AT ALL TIMES. No one has show a single video without these spaces.

An honest person can look at the evidence and ALL the evidence points to no faking.

The time lapse video they put out is edited and doesn't show a non-stop lapse from start to finish.

 

[Edgetho]

(Interactive Gigapixel Image HERE)

Inauguration interactive pic. No white spaces.

 

[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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It appears that no one is disputing the photo.

The question is, would the MSM deceptively edit the crowd images? Is this another NBC vs Zimmerman the white Hispanic 911 calls?

NBC issues apology for edited Zimmerman 911 call

The question is, could they edit crowd images live?

The other question is, if you look at other photos, and compare them, do you see the white space that is similar, the answer is yes.

Here's Obama's from 2009

Here's Trump's. You clearly see lots of people in both, but behind you see white space. But there's LESS white space here than in this picture

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.

Outside of the claims of the photographers, I can't know for sure when those photos were taken.

I'm not saying Trump is right. I'm saying that no honest person can say for sure.

I do know that partisans are going to believe anything that supports their political agendas.
.

Thing is, there's a time laps video and it shows the empty spaces AT ALL TIMES. No one has show a single video without these spaces.

An honest person can look at the evidence and ALL the evidence points to no faking.

The time lapse video they put out is edited and doesn't show a non-stop lapse from start to finish.

Oh, it's edited is it? How convenient for you to be able to post this and not feel the need for any evidence to back it up.

 

[Edgetho]

If you look at right rear, you can see the Police screening area. In the middle of Trump's speech, they're still trying to check people in to the main viewing area.

The Police staging area is the only place I see that's got some white space in it. And the very, very back. Which might be a set-up for some official functions like Medical or something.

The place is packed.

And while I don't care that the Lying Cocksucker might have had more people, the point is -- the DISGUSTING FILTH showed dishonest pictures to make a stupid and dishonest point.

Because that's what they are -- Disgusting Filth.

And FNC took their side all day yesterday. Fuck them too. Funny how they circle the wagons when their brothers and sisters are being shown for the liars they are.

 

[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.

From the gigapixel:

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


View attachment 108164
View attachment 108165 View attachment 108166
View attachment 108167
View attachment 108168

Those are not "huge swaths".

 

[theHawk]

The question is, would the MSM deceptively edit the crowd images? Is this another NBC vs Zimmerman the white Hispanic 911 calls?

NBC issues apology for edited Zimmerman 911 call

The question is, could they edit crowd images live?

The other question is, if you look at other photos, and compare them, do you see the white space that is similar, the answer is yes.

Here's Obama's from 2009

Here's Trump's. You clearly see lots of people in both, but behind you see white space. But there's LESS white space here than in this picture

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.

Outside of the claims of the photographers, I can't know for sure when those photos were taken.

I'm not saying Trump is right. I'm saying that no honest person can say for sure.

I do know that partisans are going to believe anything that supports their political agendas.
.

Thing is, there's a time laps video and it shows the empty spaces AT ALL TIMES. No one has show a single video without these spaces.

An honest person can look at the evidence and ALL the evidence points to no faking.

The time lapse video they put out is edited and doesn't show a non-stop lapse from start to finish.

Oh, it's edited is it? How convenient for you to be able to post this and not feel the need for any evidence to back it up.

Just watch it. There are no time stamps on it, and its not a continuous shot.

 

[Edgetho]

Oh, it's edited is it? How convenient for you to be able to post this and not feel the need for any evidence to back it up.

Not edited. The photo was taken at least a half hour before the event started.

Ever been to an NFL Game? Watch how fast a stadium can fill in the last fifteen minutes before kickoff.

So if I take a picture of the Stadium a half hour before the kickoff and say that the game had a small attendance, that's okay??

 

[Edgetho]

Again, people. Take a look for yourselves Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

Are you sure these were not alternative facts?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The question is, could they edit crowd images live?

The other question is, if you look at other photos, and compare them, do you see the white space that is similar, the answer is yes.

Here's Obama's from 2009

Here's Trump's. You clearly see lots of people in both, but behind you see white space. But there's LESS white space here than in this picture

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.

Outside of the claims of the photographers, I can't know for sure when those photos were taken.

I'm not saying Trump is right. I'm saying that no honest person can say for sure.

I do know that partisans are going to believe anything that supports their political agendas.
.

Thing is, there's a time laps video and it shows the empty spaces AT ALL TIMES. No one has show a single video without these spaces.

An honest person can look at the evidence and ALL the evidence points to no faking.

The time lapse video they put out is edited and doesn't show a non-stop lapse from start to finish.

Oh, it's edited is it? How convenient for you to be able to post this and not feel the need for any evidence to back it up.

Just watch it. There are no time stamps on it, and its not a continuous shot.

It's a time lapse video. Of course it's not a continuous shot. "Just watch it" doesn't make an argument.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

How about a photo from above.

 

[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...

 

[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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

 

[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.