Fake news kingpin CNN caught editing footage of the Inauguration crowd

[Ame®icano]

That's true but at least no other candidate got more votes than Clinton.

Can you explain why is that relevant?

It's relevant to the post I responded to.

Actually it's not relevant to that post at all, you threw that in for no reason. It's as relevant as if you siad that tomorrow is Monday.

Of course it was relevant. A poster pointed out that [Bill] Clinton, like Trump, did not win a majority of votes. I pointed out that at least Clinton, unlike Trump, won a plurality of votes.

I can't help your G-d given limitations prevent you from comprehending the relevance.

You're not answering what I have asked, but what you want to answer.

Let me rephrase. Why is important that HRC had more votes that you had to point it out?

 

[Ame®icano]

And those photos prove what? Barry had bigger crowd?

I say yes, he did.

Have you compared photos taken during the speech?

By looking on those photos, you can still see that Barry's crowd was larger but more importantly, that media is lying about the size of crowd.

You know Spicer put the live crowd at 720,000 but Tramp exaggerated it to 1.5 million, so which one is lying? Most of the media, including even Breitbart and FOX, put the crowd size at 800,000, so is Breitbart, FOX and Spicer lying or Tramp?

You're dodging again.

In my opinion, Barry's crowd was bigger. I assume you'll agree with me here. But this is not about who had bigger crowd.

This is about photos that media used to compare crowds to show Trump's crowd was much smaller than actually was.

There's no evidence the media used anything but live shots, showing the actual crowd size.

There is no time stamp on any of those photos above to prove when exactly photos were taken.

What is known that swearing in begin at noon, and inauguration speech begin right after. Have you compared those photos?

LOL

I was watching it live and saw that same crowd when they showed the aerial view. And it wasn't just CNN, I posted a link to the BBC video which also showed the same aerial view at the end of Trump's speech.

There is no question Obama's crowd was larger. This is about the right lying about something this trivial.

The question was, have you compared photos during the swearing in ceremony and during the inauguration speech?

 

[edthecynic]

So post a view from the same angle as the 2009 image.... every major news outlet was there, are you saying not one captured that angle??

And those photos prove what? Barry had bigger crowd?

I say yes, he did.

Have you compared photos taken during the speech?

By looking on those photos, you can still see that Barry's crowd was larger but more importantly, that media is lying about the size of crowd.

You know Spicer put the live crowd at 720,000 but Tramp exaggerated it to 1.5 million, so which one is lying? Most of the media, including even Breitbart and FOX, put the crowd size at 800,000, so is Breitbart, FOX and Spicer lying or Tramp?

You're dodging again.

In my opinion, Barry's crowd was bigger. I assume you'll agree with me here. But this is not about who had bigger crowd.

This is about photos that media used to compare crowds to show Trump's crowd was much smaller than actually was.

The majority of the media, including even Breitbart and FOX put Tramp's crowd at 800,000 and even Spicer put it at 720,000 so the media even padded the total by 80,000 in Tramp's favor.

From Spicer's presser:
"We know that from the platform where the President was sworn in, to 4th Street, it holds about 250,000 people. From 4th Street to the media tent is about another 220,000. And from the media tent to the Washington Monument, another 250,000 people. All of this space was full when the President took the Oath of Office."

Can you explain what's the issue there?

That there was around 750K (give or take) or that wasn't?

The issue is Tramp lied and said there were 1.5 million and had his press secretary lie and say Tramp had the largest inaugural audience of any president in history and the media were liars.

 

[Ame®icano]

Yes, there is even a link with both presidents speaking and a slider in the center to click on and slide left and right at this link, second photo down:
Who pulled the bigger crowd: Trump or Obama?

I'm not arguing that.

My question is, do you think that photo comparison used by CNN was honest.

Because you can't really get from empty lawn to photo below in 30 minutes.

 

[Faun]

That's true but at least no other candidate got more votes than Clinton.

Can you explain why is that relevant?

It's relevant to the post I responded to.

Actually it's not relevant to that post at all, you threw that in for no reason. It's as relevant as if you siad that tomorrow is Monday.

Of course it was relevant. A poster pointed out that [Bill] Clinton, like Trump, did not win a majority of votes. I pointed out that at least Clinton, unlike Trump, won a plurality of votes.

I can't help your G-d given limitations prevent you from comprehending the relevance.

You're not answering what I have asked, but what you want to answer.

Let me rephrase. Why is important that HRC had more votes that you had to point it out?

Asked and answered. Again, I can't help you're incapable of understanding the relevance between two presidents who failed to win a majority of votes by pointing out at least one of them also won a plurality of votes.

 

[Faun]

Yes, there is even a link with both presidents speaking and a slider in the center to click on and slide left and right at this link, second photo down:
Who pulled the bigger crowd: Trump or Obama?

I'm not arguing that.

My question is, do you think that photo comparison used by CNN was honest.

Because you can't really get from empty lawn to photo below in 30 minutes.

That's a different angle which cannot possibly show the same gaps as seen from the aerial shot. Post any aerial shot from any time and you will see how much thinner the crowd is compared to Obama's inauguration.

 

[Roudy]

The far right got knocked on their asses today, period, across the country.

Listen up, Trump, callsignchaos, and westwall. Your kind was put on notice today across the country.

You mean all the people that are still suffering a major butthurt as a result of the election last November 8, decided to hit the streets and cry about it?

 

[Ame®icano]

And those photos prove what? Barry had bigger crowd?

I say yes, he did.

Have you compared photos taken during the speech?

By looking on those photos, you can still see that Barry's crowd was larger but more importantly, that media is lying about the size of crowd.

You know Spicer put the live crowd at 720,000 but Tramp exaggerated it to 1.5 million, so which one is lying? Most of the media, including even Breitbart and FOX, put the crowd size at 800,000, so is Breitbart, FOX and Spicer lying or Tramp?

You're dodging again.

In my opinion, Barry's crowd was bigger. I assume you'll agree with me here. But this is not about who had bigger crowd.

This is about photos that media used to compare crowds to show Trump's crowd was much smaller than actually was.

The majority of the media, including even Breitbart and FOX put Tramp's crowd at 800,000 and even Spicer put it at 720,000 so the media even padded the total by 80,000 in Tramp's favor.

From Spicer's presser:
"We know that from the platform where the President was sworn in, to 4th Street, it holds about 250,000 people. From 4th Street to the media tent is about another 220,000. And from the media tent to the Washington Monument, another 250,000 people. All of this space was full when the President took the Oath of Office."

Can you explain what's the issue there?

That there was around 750K (give or take) or that wasn't?

The issue is Tramp lied and said there were 1.5 million and had his press secretary lie and say Tramp had the largest inaugural audience of any president in history and the media were liars.

I heard he said that park services does not provide numbers. Him saying that was the largest crowd ever is his opinion.

 

[Ame®icano]

Can you explain why is that relevant?

It's relevant to the post I responded to.

Actually it's not relevant to that post at all, you threw that in for no reason. It's as relevant as if you siad that tomorrow is Monday.

Of course it was relevant. A poster pointed out that [Bill] Clinton, like Trump, did not win a majority of votes. I pointed out that at least Clinton, unlike Trump, won a plurality of votes.

I can't help your G-d given limitations prevent you from comprehending the relevance.

You're not answering what I have asked, but what you want to answer.

Let me rephrase. Why is important that HRC had more votes that you had to point it out?

Asked and answered. Again, I can't help you're incapable of understanding the relevance between two presidents who failed to win a majority of votes by pointing out at least one of them also won a plurality of votes.

You're still not answering why plurality of votes are relevant?

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, there is even a link with both presidents speaking and a slider in the center to click on and slide left and right at this link, second photo down:
Who pulled the bigger crowd: Trump or Obama?

I'm not arguing that.

My question is, do you think that photo comparison used by CNN was honest.

Because you can't really get from empty lawn to photo below in 30 minutes.

Why not, the CNN shots were overhead and your ground level shots, while showing a lot of white, do not show all of it that would be visible from an overhead shot. Furthermore Tramp, even in your shot, could not fill all the ground even up to the building in front of the Washington Monument that wasn't there for Obama and was filled with people and beyond.

 

[Ame®icano]

Yes, there is even a link with both presidents speaking and a slider in the center to click on and slide left and right at this link, second photo down:
Who pulled the bigger crowd: Trump or Obama?

I'm not arguing that.

My question is, do you think that photo comparison used by CNN was honest.

Because you can't really get from empty lawn to photo below in 30 minutes.

That's a different angle which cannot possibly show the same gaps as seen from the aerial shot. Post any aerial shot from any time and you will see how much thinner the crowd is compared to Obama's inauguration.

Again, Barry's crowd was bigger.

Again, the aerial photos provided by CNN doesn't not have time stamp that shows when exactly photo was taken.

Again, you can't go from empty lawn to fairly crowded lawn in 30 minutes, and that explains that CNN is lying.

 

[Ame®icano]

Yes, there is even a link with both presidents speaking and a slider in the center to click on and slide left and right at this link, second photo down:
Who pulled the bigger crowd: Trump or Obama?

I'm not arguing that.

My question is, do you think that photo comparison used by CNN was honest.

Because you can't really get from empty lawn to photo below in 30 minutes.

Why not, the CNN shots were overhead and your ground level shots, while showing a lot of white, do not show all of it that would be visible from an overhead shot. Furthermore Tramp, even in your shot, could not fill all the ground even up to the building in front of the Washington Monument that wasn't there for Obama and was filled with people and beyond.

Those two last I posted are just to show some close up.

Is Trump in this shot?

 

[Ame®icano]

How about this one?

 

[Faun]

Yes, there is even a link with both presidents speaking and a slider in the center to click on and slide left and right at this link, second photo down:
Who pulled the bigger crowd: Trump or Obama?

I'm not arguing that.

My question is, do you think that photo comparison used by CNN was honest.

Because you can't really get from empty lawn to photo below in 30 minutes.

That's a different angle which cannot possibly show the same gaps as seen from the aerial shot. Post any aerial shot from any time and you will see how much thinner the crowd is compared to Obama's inauguration.

Again, Barry's crowd was bigger.

Again, the aerial photos provided by CNN doesn't not have time stamp that shows when exactly photo was taken.

Again, you can't go from empty lawn to fairly crowded lawn in 30 minutes, and that explains that CNN is lying.

Of course there was a timestamp. Look at the lower right hand corner...

 

[theHawk]

The gigapixel photo clearly shows the crowd is full all the way back, and that's from CNN. You can spin the view around and zoom in, this is when Trump is giving his speech. Clearly proves the photos used by libtards is fake, taken at a much earlier or later time.

 

[theHawk]

Yes, there is even a link with both presidents speaking and a slider in the center to click on and slide left and right at this link, second photo down:
Who pulled the bigger crowd: Trump or Obama?

I'm not arguing that.

My question is, do you think that photo comparison used by CNN was honest.

Because you can't really get from empty lawn to photo below in 30 minutes.

That's a different angle which cannot possibly show the same gaps as seen from the aerial shot. Post any aerial shot from any time and you will see how much thinner the crowd is compared to Obama's inauguration.

Again, Barry's crowd was bigger.

Again, the aerial photos provided by CNN doesn't not have time stamp that shows when exactly photo was taken.

Again, you can't go from empty lawn to fairly crowded lawn in 30 minutes, and that explains that CNN is lying.

Of course there was a timestamp. Look at the lower right hand corner...

They were obviously using old footage and claiming it was live. It contradicts their gigapixel photo that shows it full all the way back past that point.

Gigapixel: The inauguration of Donald Trump

 

[edthecynic]

The gigapixel photo clearly shows the crowd is full all the way back, and that's from CNN. You can spin the view around and zoom in, this is when Trump is giving his speech. Clearly proves the photos used by libtards is fake, taken at a much earlier or later time.

the gigapixel photo clearly shows a lot of white in front of the buildings in front of the Washington Monument, but in Obama's photo there is no white, no buildings in front of the monument and a sea of people all the way up to the base of the monument and beyond.

 

[theHawk]

The gigapixel photo clearly shows the crowd is full all the way back, and that's from CNN. You can spin the view around and zoom in, this is when Trump is giving his speech. Clearly proves the photos used by libtards is fake, taken at a much earlier or later time.

the gigapixel photo clearly shows a lot of white in front of the buildings in front of the Washington Monument, but in Obama's photo there is no white, no buildings in front of the monument and a sea of people all the way up to the base of the monument and beyond.

The gigapixel is clearly much more full than the Trump photo you libs have been posting. You clearly are incapable of admitting that. It was just almost as full, or just as full as Obama's, but that isn't the point.

 

[tigerred59]

Guys, President Trump is simply the best thing for the USA and the WHOLE WORLD that could possibly happened! He will help us "real" americans to withstand against the washington establishemnt! I hope he will earn enough power or will change some law-stuff, so that he can imprison all "fake" americans who want to keep us down!!!
ALL HAIL TRUMP!!!

LOLO

 

[edthecynic]

The gigapixel photo clearly shows the crowd is full all the way back, and that's from CNN. You can spin the view around and zoom in, this is when Trump is giving his speech. Clearly proves the photos used by libtards is fake, taken at a much earlier or later time.

the gigapixel photo clearly shows a lot of white in front of the buildings in front of the Washington Monument, but in Obama's photo there is no white, no buildings in front of the monument and a sea of people all the way up to the base of the monument and beyond.

The gigapixel is clearly much more full than the Trump photo you libs have been posting. You clearly are incapable of admitting that. It was just almost as full, or just as full as Obama's, but that isn't the point.

No, the gigapixel photo is from a much lower angle, hiding most of the white area with little or no people, but in spite of the low angle there are areas with so few people that you can clearly see the white ground cover.