Posted on 01/22/2017 6:37:05 PM PST by photoguy
I have completed exhaustive analysis of the disputed Trump crowd shot and the CNN gigapixel crowd shot. As much as it pains me to say, the two images match quite well and the disputed crowd shot is legitimate and represents the actual crowd size. There was no deception on the part of the media.
I have four decades of experience as an advertising photographer. I am qualified to make this kind of analysis.
As a Trump supporter and voter I think it does us a great disservice to not deal honestly with issues such as these. In this case even the President and his staff have it wrong, and it hurts all of us.
Good detective work.
Now, the Obama picture was taken at the height of the day during the Inauguration.
The Trump picture in question was taken at 9am, way before the Inauguration.
Do you think, with your obvious skills, that the time the photos were taken might make a difference ?
Look at the photo. All of the principals are in place. Press Secretary is wrong. He should have said that Trump’s crowd was smaller because most of his supporters were at work.
(Silly argument, who gives a damn).
Incorrect. Study each crowd section carefully. The disputed image is a good fit with the gigapixel image. It’s better to deal with truth than to live a lie.
No they didn't . The point was that the media was using supposedly low numbers as a narrative to destroy Trump. It was on the news all day. The narrative went....Hillary won the popular vote. More than half the country hates Trump. Look at how few came to his inauguration. THAT was the story and that's why Trump is fighting back...to combat a completely false narrative and set it himself.
CNN interactive. It’s been on several threads.
I have completed an exhaustive analysis of your Posting history. As much as it pains me, you can now kiss your liberal ass good-bye.
Sleeper DUmmy.
This is soooo silly.
There are about 3,000,000 demorat voters withing walking distance of the Mall. Most of them black. When Obozo get inaugurated, they flocked there like it was a Nairobi street fair.
And you are flat-out wrong. The media portrayed early pics as being at the height of the event, which is a falsehood. And there was no narrative explaining that security barricades prevented folks from filling in quickly, as they did at the Obama event with no barricades so crowds could quickly fill in from all sides. The Trump event was more restrictive due to security, so the crowds filled in later just prior to the height of the event. The media chose to disparage the Trump crowd counts by displaying early pictures, not the ones showing the full crowds.
The media lied!
Bunk the small crowd photos have been debunked.
http://truthfeed.com/this-should-settle-all-the-rumors-heres-what-trumps-real-crowd-looked-like/48101/
That is one continuous shot from CNN’s Gigapixel, also posted to Reddit here
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5pkj37/i_used_a_gigapixel_photo_of_the_inauguration_to/
Thank you, i'll be glad when this is off the news cycle. So much to talk about and cabinet appointments to confirm, Exective orders to repeal. I mean 31 million watched. Like you i dont care about crowd size or who was in the stands
I care that Obama is gone. And a new day starts tomorrow. And hopefully this story will end.
The dispute is many here and elsewhere claim the photo from the Washington Monument does not accurately reflect the size of the Trump crowd. The gigapixel image proves that it does.
Come on - there’s no comparison between those pics.. The one the media wants to bloviate about shows the LARGE WHITE AREA before it was filled up and puts that beside the 2009 picture... The 2017 picture wasn’t taken when the oath was being done as the white area was totally covered except for a small area and your own pic shows it completely covered also. You are not showing what the media has shown!!!
We were told at the beginning on one of the channels to watch that area and when the white no longer showed, it would then be that it had been filled with people. Whenever the camera shot from that angle, you could see it taking place. Totally dishonest to not show what the media is showing hence the controversy!
Be honest: it didn’t pain you that much. :D
If you feel I’m incorrect then please, do your best to prove me wrong. I’ll give you a bit of advice for free. You are going to lose.
How many people did not attend for fear of blood shed...
Thank you
OK — Looking at the photos in post #3, I can see the crowds seem “thicker” in 2013. But I thought one of the disputed photos this year showed an aerial view that had the Mall pretty much empty toward the Washington Monument. That was apparently taken earlier in the day than the media represented. The photo is #3 shows (to my untrained eye) people there.
Liberals are more into this kind of stuff than conservatives. I don’t think I would ever consider going to one.
Personally I think the POTUS should take the Oath and then get to work, without all of this Pomp and Circumstance.
Watching at home with family the repeated reaction was look at all those people. You say that was a small crowd. You can’t be serious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.