Came across this
Quote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:14:15 AMCame across thisyou see there's a problem with the claim on that image you posted, that comparison shot was taken during the speech at peak time for the crowdyou've fallen for damage control son
Trump bashing thread. Nice. He IS your president! Next 8 years.
Quote from: LC on January 22, 2017, 01:24:05 AMQuote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:14:15 AMCame across thisyou see there's a problem with the claim on that image you posted, that comparison shot was taken during the speech at peak time for the crowdyou've fallen for damage control sonI was just showing that there was another image showing more people. Unfortunately I couldn't attend, so I can't say which is certain either way.
Quote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:32:16 AMQuote from: LC on January 22, 2017, 01:24:05 AMQuote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:14:15 AMCame across thisyou see there's a problem with the claim on that image you posted, that comparison shot was taken during the speech at peak time for the crowdyou've fallen for damage control sonI was just showing that there was another image showing more people. Unfortunately I couldn't attend, so I can't say which is certain either way.that's not how it workschanging the perspective to make it look like Obama and Trump had roughly the same amount of people doesn't mean that they had the same amount of peoplethe overhead shot has more people in the frame than the on the ground one, it's also providing you the complete picture instead of a cherry picked angle that tries to fool you into believing a false narrative
Quote from: LC on January 22, 2017, 02:13:07 AMQuote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:32:16 AMQuote from: LC on January 22, 2017, 01:24:05 AMQuote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:14:15 AMCame across thisyou see there's a problem with the claim on that image you posted, that comparison shot was taken during the speech at peak time for the crowdyou've fallen for damage control sonI was just showing that there was another image showing more people. Unfortunately I couldn't attend, so I can't say which is certain either way.that's not how it workschanging the perspective to make it look like Obama and Trump had roughly the same amount of people doesn't mean that they had the same amount of peoplethe overhead shot has more people in the frame than the on the ground one, it's also providing you the complete picture instead of a cherry picked angle that tries to fool you into believing a false narrativeAre you seriously trying to say the Trump picture is just a perspective trick when it's quite literally the same viewing angle?
I was just showing that there was another image showing more people.
Quote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 02:26:23 AMQuote from: LC on January 22, 2017, 02:13:07 AMQuote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:32:16 AMQuote from: LC on January 22, 2017, 01:24:05 AMQuote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:14:15 AMCame across thisyou see there's a problem with the claim on that image you posted, that comparison shot was taken during the speech at peak time for the crowdyou've fallen for damage control sonI was just showing that there was another image showing more people. Unfortunately I couldn't attend, so I can't say which is certain either way.that's not how it workschanging the perspective to make it look like Obama and Trump had roughly the same amount of people doesn't mean that they had the same amount of peoplethe overhead shot has more people in the frame than the on the ground one, it's also providing you the complete picture instead of a cherry picked angle that tries to fool you into believing a false narrativeAre you seriously trying to say the Trump picture is just a perspective trick when it's quite literally the same viewing angle? Quote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:32:16 AMI was just showing that there was another image showing more people.you literally said that changing the perspective creates more peoplethere are not more people in that picture than there are in the overhead shot of the trump inaguration
Quote from: LC on January 22, 2017, 02:31:42 AMQuote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 02:26:23 AMQuote from: LC on January 22, 2017, 02:13:07 AMQuote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:32:16 AMQuote from: LC on January 22, 2017, 01:24:05 AMQuote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:14:15 AMCame across thisyou see there's a problem with the claim on that image you posted, that comparison shot was taken during the speech at peak time for the crowdyou've fallen for damage control sonI was just showing that there was another image showing more people. Unfortunately I couldn't attend, so I can't say which is certain either way.that's not how it workschanging the perspective to make it look like Obama and Trump had roughly the same amount of people doesn't mean that they had the same amount of peoplethe overhead shot has more people in the frame than the on the ground one, it's also providing you the complete picture instead of a cherry picked angle that tries to fool you into believing a false narrativeAre you seriously trying to say the Trump picture is just a perspective trick when it's quite literally the same viewing angle? Quote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 01:32:16 AMI was just showing that there was another image showing more people.you literally said that changing the perspective creates more peoplethere are not more people in that picture than there are in the overhead shot of the trump inagurationI didn't say changing the perspective adds more people. I was pointing out that there's another image showing that there are more people present than the skimpy leads on. I can't say one way or the other if Trump had more or less people because there are conflicting images, but it's known that most media tries to downplay the number or Trumps supporters as seen last year from his rallies.
It lends nothing to your credibility as someone who is meant to bridge the gap between administrative figures and those you work with in the press
So please explain the perspective distortion in the gigapixel imagehttp://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/
Quote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 11:17:20 AMSo please explain the perspective distortion in the gigapixel imagehttp://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/1 - You can literally see plenty of white space in front of the media tent (The large, white tent at the far right of the picture), along with two sections back from the reflecting pond. There is also standing area behind the media tent (Between it and the Washington monument) that would show the speech on monitors - assuming that areas in front of the tent are open as the image shows, the area behind the tent would fail to meet capacity as well.2 - You're still attempting to argue that a level shot from the stands will show better estimates of the crowds than an aerial shot from above. It really doesn't, as any reputable photography or cinematographer would argue.
You people are unbelievable. Believe what you want them, it seems to be the only thing the left is capable of. It's a gigapixel nearly 360 degree shot of the inauguration and you can zoom in in full clarity to the back. You can see that the people nearly reach the tent or at least the edge of the white tarp in front of the tent, which is more people than the aerial shows. I'm still not trying to say there were more people that at Obama's, but there were more people there than what the aerial picture shows that everyone's rubbing their cock over because "Trump is a failing president".
I just checked your image. The number one thing that immediately stood out was the left and right sides of the main crowd where the streets start. Trees blocking people in Obama's image were cut down in Trump's but you can clearly see the open road on the left side of Trump's over Obama's. I'll have you know though that I really don't care about the Inauguration photos, the only thing I'm busting my balls over the Inauguration is finding the video of The American Tap Company performance at the Inaugural Ball. Quote from: Casper on January 22, 2017, 11:39:57 AMYou people are unbelievable. Believe what you want them, it seems to be the only thing the left is capable of. It's a gigapixel nearly 360 degree shot of the inauguration and you can zoom in in full clarity to the back. You can see that the people nearly reach the tent or at least the edge of the white tarp in front of the tent, which is more people than the aerial shows. I'm still not trying to say there were more people that at Obama's, but there were more people there than what the aerial picture shows that everyone's rubbing their cock over because "Trump is a failing president".
"my guy had more people at his party than YOUR guy did!!!2"So this is what the debate has come to.
Quote from: Mordo on January 22, 2017, 11:52:44 AM"my guy had more people at his party than YOUR guy did!!!2"So this is what the debate has come to.To be fair, Trump started it as far as I know.
"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period."
Sounds like a good statement to me.
Quote from: Alpha on January 22, 2017, 04:37:04 PMSounds like a good statement to me.In what universe is it a good statement to lie, from your first time behind the podium, 4 times in under 5 minutes?
Quote from: Icy on January 22, 2017, 04:42:19 PMQuote from: Alpha on January 22, 2017, 04:37:04 PMSounds like a good statement to me.In what universe is it a good statement to lie, from your first time behind the podium, 4 times in under 5 minutes?Not a lie. He said it had a record number of people watching in person and across the globe. Just because there weren't as many people actually there doesn't mean anything.
About 31 million people watched Donald Trump be sworn in as president on Friday, about average for first-term presidents in recent history.Per Nielsen, 30.64 million people tuned in across 12 networks’ inauguration day coverage. The ratings service measured ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, HLN, Fox Business, CNBC, Univision, Telemundo and Galavision.That’s the fifth largest audience for an inuagural since 1969, as far back as Nielsen’s figures go. Ronald Reagan in 1981 holds the record with 41.8 million viewers, followed by Barack Obama’s first swearing in in 2009 at 37.79 million.
Quote from: Icy on January 22, 2017, 04:42:19 PMQuote from: Alpha on January 22, 2017, 04:37:04 PMSounds like a good statement to me.In what universe is it a good statement to lie, from your first time behind the podium, 4 times in under 5 minutes?Don't argue with Trumpets. Lies and Truths are whatever they do or do not agree with. They're subjective.
First President Statement already looking bad
