- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CBS continues to lie about early Trump inauguration photo
Posted on 1/24/17 at 12:11 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 1/24/17 at 12:11 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
this photo which shows there were people packed in all the way back to the Washington monument.
Except it doesn't. Even from this severely tilted angle you can see spots of open ground on the right, which make it clear that the crowd was not at capacity.
quote:
Even from this perspective, any large vacant areas would be easily seen.
And they are. Look to the right side of the crowd. Very large, very vacant.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 12:27 pm
1
Posted on 1/24/17 at 12:22 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
I have no idea what picture they used but I was right here in the middle of all of it in 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2017 and know damn well there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever between the size of the respective crowds. Trump's was EASILY, hands down the smallest inauguration crowd of the four. Nowhere even remotely close to any of the others, including Bush in 2005, which was also small compared to Obama's.
It's an irrelevant question, since he would be just as much the president if nobody showed up as he would be if 20 million did, which makes it really weird and alarming that he (not the media) feels compelled to lie about it. He is obviously very insecure and paranoid.
What lie are you claiming President Trump told?
I listened to what President Trump said to the CIA and he said when he looked out at the crowd it looked like a million to 1 1/2 million people but "whatever it was..."
He made it clear that he wasn't saying there were 1 million to 1 1/2 million people there.
He just said it looked like there were 1 million to 1 1/2 million people there and from the photo I posted I could understand why it looked that way to President Trump.
When I attended Woodstock in 1969 and I looked at the crowd it looked like 1 million to 1 1/2 million people to me although it was only 400,000 people.
You Trump haters have to get a life.
It's over.
Trump is the POTUS.
Get used to it.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 1/24/17 at 12:42 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
this photo which shows there were people packed in all the way back to the Washington monument.
quote:
Except it doesn't. Even from this severely tilted angle you can see spots of open ground on the right, which make it clear that the crowd was not at capacity.
Here's the photo again.
I don't see the spots of open ground on the right you are talking about.
All I see on the right are 3 white easy-up type structures.
Circle them in red so I can see what you claim are very large, very vacant areas.
And it is not a "severely tilted angle".
A severely tilted angle would be like looking at the crowd from eye level.
The angle the photo was taken looks to be about 20-30 degrees which would make any very large, very vacant areas clearly seen in the photo which there aren't any in the photo.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 1/24/17 at 12:44 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Here's the photo again.
Same gaps. Look at the ground covering, it's clearly visible in wide swashs on the right side of the Mall.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 12:52 pm to TBoy
quote:I would really appreciate it if you could provide a link confirming what you're saying here. I've googled and the only place I can find that says what you do is on "occupydemocrats.com" website which I suspect might not be an objective source. Thanks.
Perhaps it is because the photographer said it was taken at 12:01 p.m., during the swearing in.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 12:55 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Same gaps. Look at the ground covering, it's clearly visible in wide swashs on the right side of the Mall.
In your previous post you said:
quote:
Look to the right side of the crowd. Very large, very vacant.
First you said there are "Very large, very vacant" areas.
Now you are saying there are "wide swashs" on the right side of the Mall.
I do not see them in the photo.
Circle in red the "wide swashs" on the right side of the Mall in the photo so I can see what you are talking about.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 1/24/17 at 1:03 pm to cajunangelle
Why hasn't the Trump team released a photo from the same angle as the original being shown? They keep showing pics from angles that make the crowd look packed but if they want to put this to bed release a pic from the same angle.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 1:17 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
quote:
Why hasn't the Trump team released a photo from the same angle as the original being shown? They keep showing pics from angles that make the crowd look packed but if they want to put this to bed release a pic from the same angle.
Post the original photo again so I know which one you are talking about.
Is it the photo from the video that shows hardly anyone in the mall area between the podium and the Washington monument when President Trump was supposedly being sworn in?
Maybe the Trump team didn't take photos from that angle because they didn't see a need to take photos from that angle.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 4:38 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I would really appreciate it if you could provide a link confirming what you're saying here. I've googled and the only place I can find that says what you do is on "occupydemocrats.com" website which I suspect might not be an objective source. Thanks.
WATCH. THE. TIME. LAPSE.
You can literally watch the entire crowd filter in, stay for a bit, and filter out. It never gets substantively larger than what's shown in the overhead shots. Apparently Dawgfan et al think that the time lapse video lies, because their low angle shot seems more compelling to them.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 5:54 pm to Strophie
quote:
Apparently Dawgfan et al think that the time lapse video lies, because their low angle shot seems more compelling to them.
The presstitutes have no credibility since they have deliberately lied during the entire election process.
Digital video can be easily altered.
Are you claiming digital video can't be easily altered?
I watched the entire inauguration on TV and there was no way the entire rear area near the Washington monument was as empty as was shown in the photo the presstitutes presented.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 6:31 pm to Strophie
quote:
WATCH. THE. TIME. LAPSE.
You can literally watch the entire crowd filter in, stay for a bit, and filter out. It never gets substantively larger than what's shown in the overhead shots. Apparently Dawgfan et al think that the time lapse video lies, because their low angle shot seems more compelling to them.
Did you read what the DisruptJ20 Crew send in an email sent to the OP who started the new thread entitled, "LOL: DC Rioters Begging Comrades For Bail Money, Legal Support"?
They wrote:
quote:
Trump's inauguration was met with the most militant, diverse protests DC has seen in over a decade, with blockades that shut down more than half of the security checkpoints...
That sounds like the disrupters were able to stop a great number of people from getting through the security checkpoints and onto the mall area during President Trump's inauguration.
That would have an effect on the total number of people who were able to watch Trump's inauguration in person.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 6:41 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:What are you arguing now?
That would have an effect on the total number of people who were able to watch Trump's inauguration in person.
There are a lot of factors that add up to why Trump's inauguration was smaller. Very legit factors. Yet you and Trump want to keep arguing about the size of the crowds.
Hell, if I was president I wouldn't even want a inauguration.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 7:06 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
What are you arguing now?
There are a lot of factors that add up to why Trump's inauguration was smaller. Very legit factors. Yet you and Trump want to keep arguing about the size of the crowds.
I've already said TWICE that I'm sure there were more people who witnessed Obama's inauguration in person than the number of people who witnessed Trump's inauguration in person.
Some people have argued that it is a fact less people showed up to see Trump's inauguration than at each of Obama's inauguration and showed comparative photos to prove it.
This new alternative fact would explain that fact because many people who showed up to see the inauguration in person were unable to get through the security checkpoints because most of the security checkpoint were being blockaded by the disrupters.
Therefore, it is possible that there were actually more people who came to DC to witness Trump's inauguration in person than who witnessed each of Obama's inaugurations in person but they were blocked by disrupters from doing that.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 1/24/17 at 7:14 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Why are they continuing to lie?
Because people like you feed into it. Stop watching and maybe you'll stop bitching.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 7:29 pm to PNW
quote:
Why are they continuing to lie?
quote:
Stop watching and maybe you'll stop bitching.
Meh, you can go stick your head in the sand so you'll never know what your opponents are doing and saying but I prefer to watch my opponents and when I see them lying I will confront them about it so they know they didn't get away with their lies.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 7:44 pm to DawgfaninCa
I am glad the Trumkpins here don't care about this issue. I am glad the president does not care.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 7:46 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Some people have argued that it is a fact less people showed up to see Trump's inauguration than at each of Obama's inauguration and showed comparative photos to prove it
This is fact.
quote:
Therefore, it is possible that there were actually more people who came to DC to witness Trump's inauguration in person than who witnessed each of Obama's inaugurations in person but they were blocked by disrupters from doing that.
This is alternative fact. The DC Metro stats would tell us if you were correct here. You, as usual, are wrong.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 8:23 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Therefore, it is possible that there were actually more people who came to DC to witness Trump's inauguration in person than who witnessed each of Obama's inaugurations in person but they were blocked by disrupters from doing that.
quote:
This is alternative fact. The DC Metro stats would tell us if you were correct here. You, as usual, are wrong.
No they wouldn't, The DC Metro stats merely tell us how many more people used the DC Metro to get to each of Obama's inaugurations than used the DC Metro to get to Trump's inauguration.
The fact that Washington DC is overwhelmingly black and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama suggests more local black people would go to each of Obama's inaugurations than would go to Trump's inauguration. Most of those local blacks would use the DC Metro to get to each of Obama's inaugurations while a lot less local blacks would go to Trump's inauguration so a lot less local blacks would use the DC Metro to get to Trump's inauguration.
Did DC Metro do a survey to count how many of the people were black who used the DC Metro to get to each of Obama's inaugurations compared to the number of blacks who used the DC Metro to get to Trump's inauguration?
What about all the white people who don't live in DC who went to Trump's inauguration who got hotel and motel rooms near the inauguration who didn't need to use the DC Metro to get to Trump's inauguration?
Was a survey done to determine the number of white people who went to Trump's inauguration who didn't use the DC Metro?
Was a survey done to determine how many blacks went to each of Obama's inaugurations compared to the number of blacks who went to Trump's inauguration?
Was a survey done to determine how many whites went to each of Obama's inaugurations compared to the number of whites who went to Trump's inauguration?
When you get those figures then get back to me and we can discuss what those figures suggest.
This post was edited on 1/24/17 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 1/24/17 at 8:34 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
That's an accurate photo. I saw it live on Fox. The problem is that people were pouring in for 45 minutes or more after it was taken. You can clearly see the mall is nearly full in other pics by the time Trump spoke. It was also raining as evidenced by raincoats, umbrellas, and record shattering tv and online viewership numbers.
You can't bitch about Trump on this one anymore. His people aren't talking about it anymore, yet CBS still is. Thin skinned, pussy MSM.
You can't bitch about Trump on this one anymore. His people aren't talking about it anymore, yet CBS still is. Thin skinned, pussy MSM.
Posted on 1/24/17 at 8:46 pm to Jeff Boomhauer
quote:
Why hasn't the Trump team released a photo from the same angle as the original being shown? They keep showing pics from angles that make the crowd look packed but if they want to put this to bed release a pic from the same angle
the issue is perspective! depends where you are and how high up...changes your "perspective" It was packed or wow, it was kind of thin compared to Obama's...
The media choose to show a comparison photo to make the new president look bad...bottom line
now if Obama's crowd looked thin in the back, I bet the media would have made sure to show the view from the stage, providing the best most respectful look for America's Democratic President.
The issue is motive, not the numbers, but since the motive is what it is from the media, Trump goes on the attack "I had a lot of people there"
then he goes further and said "most watched in history"
which apparently it was...with social media
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News