Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Definitive CNN Gigapixel Image of Crowd During Trump Inauguration Speech Confirms Sean Spicer Correct…
Topic Started: Jan 22 2017, 03:20 PM (1,369 Views)
Katoblue
Member Avatar

Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 01:41 AM
Lucash just owned the thread
no he didn't I just watched his video and it stopped running while people were still filling up the mall.. sorry but us deplorables are not as gruber gullible as libs are..

now if lucash would like to post the unedited version of that video to show completely to the end when people stopped entering the mall we would then have an honest comparison.. but his video was edited to stop before the mall was finished filling up..

so no he proved absolutely nothing...
Killary, DNC, Obummer's DOJ and FBI all Lied and Spied and Good People Died!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Tik
Member Avatar

Katoblue
Jan 23 2017, 02:55 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 01:41 AM
Lucash just owned the thread
no he didn't I just watched his video and it stopped running while people were still filling up the mall.. sorry but us deplorables are not as gruber gullible as libs are..

now if lucash would like to post the unedited version of that video to show completely to the end when people stopped entering the mall we would then have an honest comparison.. but his video was edited to stop before the mall was finished filling up..

so no he proved absolutely nothing...
Where is your evidence of this?
The gigapixle thingy can only catch part of the crowd..so that is moot
The editing appears to be due to moving the camera farther back
Also...look at the video at 0:49..it shows the crowd just as people are leaving en mass
Pretty consistent with the graphic




Trump just isn't that popular at this point
He certainly has his loyal groupies, but many who voted were holding the proverbial nose doing it.
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

In 2008 President Obama captured 94% of the DC vote. Trump, in 2016 captured only 4%. So it stands to reason that Obama's crowd would be significantly larger, as many more locals would have attended Obama's ceremony.

Frankly the whole argument, both ways, is pretty fu@kin stupid since the difference has more to do with local demographics than overall support. Attendance at the inauguration is hardly a measure of popularity.

But hooray for our side!!!! Right?
:hooray:
Edited by ringotuna, Jan 23 2017, 04:00 AM.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Tik
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 03:58 AM
In 2008 President Obama captured 94% of the DC vote. Trump, in 2016 captured only 4%. So it stands to reason that Obama's crowd would be significantly larger, as many more locals would have attended Obama's ceremony.

Frankly the whole argument, both ways, is pretty fu@kin stupid since the difference has more to do with local demographics than overall support. Attendance at the inauguration is hardly a measure of popularity.

But hooray for our side!!!! Right?
:hooray:
It is obviously important to Trump has his flunkies like Conway and Spicer out there trying ro spin it
Spicer's first press event, mind you. It's gonna be an "interesting" four years.

Posted Image

“This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,

You can't make this crap up :lol:
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 05:03 AM
ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 03:58 AM
In 2008 President Obama captured 94% of the DC vote. Trump, in 2016 captured only 4%. So it stands to reason that Obama's crowd would be significantly larger, as many more locals would have attended Obama's ceremony.

Frankly the whole argument, both ways, is pretty fu@kin stupid since the difference has more to do with local demographics than overall support. Attendance at the inauguration is hardly a measure of popularity.

But hooray for our side!!!! Right?
:hooray:
It is obviously important to Trump has his flunkies like Conway and Spicer out there trying ro spin it
Spicer's first press event, mind you. It's gonna be an "interesting" four years.

Posted Image

“This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,

You can't make this crap up :lol:
Regarding who it's important to, let's not forget it's the left who are flaunting and nanny nanny boo booing the comparative photographs.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Tik
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 05:07 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 05:03 AM
ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 03:58 AM
In 2008 President Obama captured 94% of the DC vote. Trump, in 2016 captured only 4%. So it stands to reason that Obama's crowd would be significantly larger, as many more locals would have attended Obama's ceremony.

Frankly the whole argument, both ways, is pretty fu@kin stupid since the difference has more to do with local demographics than overall support. Attendance at the inauguration is hardly a measure of popularity.

But hooray for our side!!!! Right?
:hooray:
It is obviously important to Trump has his flunkies like Conway and Spicer out there trying ro spin it
Spicer's first press event, mind you. It's gonna be an "interesting" four years.

Posted Image

“This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,

You can't make this crap up :lol:
Regarding who it's important to, let's not forget it's the left who are flaunting and nanny nanny boo booing the comparative photographs.
Well duh...you should write lyrics for Steve Miller
"Time keeps on slipping into the future"
:lol:
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 05:13 AM
ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 05:07 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 05:03 AM
ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 03:58 AM
In 2008 President Obama captured 94% of the DC vote. Trump, in 2016 captured only 4%. So it stands to reason that Obama's crowd would be significantly larger, as many more locals would have attended Obama's ceremony.

Frankly the whole argument, both ways, is pretty fu@kin stupid since the difference has more to do with local demographics than overall support. Attendance at the inauguration is hardly a measure of popularity.

But hooray for our side!!!! Right?
:hooray:
It is obviously important to Trump has his flunkies like Conway and Spicer out there trying ro spin it
Spicer's first press event, mind you. It's gonna be an "interesting" four years.

Posted Image

“This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,

You can't make this crap up :lol:
Regarding who it's important to, let's not forget it's the left who are flaunting and nanny nanny boo booing the comparative photographs.
Well duh...you should write lyrics for Steve Miller
"Time keeps on slipping into the future"
:lol:
Sometimes the obvious facts have to be pointed out to the cheerleaders.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Tik
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 05:18 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 05:13 AM
ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 05:07 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 05:03 AM
ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 03:58 AM
In 2008 President Obama captured 94% of the DC vote. Trump, in 2016 captured only 4%. So it stands to reason that Obama's crowd would be significantly larger, as many more locals would have attended Obama's ceremony.

Frankly the whole argument, both ways, is pretty fu@kin stupid since the difference has more to do with local demographics than overall support. Attendance at the inauguration is hardly a measure of popularity.

But hooray for our side!!!! Right?
:hooray:
It is obviously important to Trump has his flunkies like Conway and Spicer out there trying ro spin it
Spicer's first press event, mind you. It's gonna be an "interesting" four years.

Posted Image

“This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,

You can't make this crap up :lol:
Regarding who it's important to, let's not forget it's the left who are flaunting and nanny nanny boo booing the comparative photographs.
Well duh...you should write lyrics for Steve Miller
"Time keeps on slipping into the future"
:lol:
Sometimes the obvious facts have to be pointed out to the cheerleaders.
Being "above it all" must be a heavy burden...how do you bear it? :booboo:
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 05:24 AM
ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 05:18 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 05:13 AM
ringotuna
Jan 23 2017, 05:07 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 05:03 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
But hooray for our side!!!! Right?
It is obviously important to Trump has his flunkies like Conway and Spicer out there trying ro spin it
Spicer's first press event, mind you. It's gonna be an "interesting" four years.

Posted Image

“This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,

You can't make this crap up :lol:
Regarding who it's important to, let's not forget it's the left who are flaunting and nanny nanny boo booing the comparative photographs.
Well duh...you should write lyrics for Steve Miller
"Time keeps on slipping into the future"
:lol:
Sometimes the obvious facts have to be pointed out to the cheerleaders.
Being "above it all" must be a heavy burden...how do you bear it? :booboo:
It ain't easy bein ringo....You're welcome to join me. :biggrin:
Edited by ringotuna, Jan 23 2017, 05:33 AM.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucash
Member Avatar
#NeverTrump
Katoblue
Jan 23 2017, 02:55 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 01:41 AM
Lucash just owned the thread
no he didn't I just watched his video and it stopped running while people were still filling up the mall.. sorry but us deplorables are not as gruber gullible as libs are..

now if lucash would like to post the unedited version of that video to show completely to the end when people stopped entering the mall we would then have an honest comparison.. but his video was edited to stop before the mall was finished filling up..

so no he proved absolutely nothing...
Actually I proved a lot of things.

1. As noted by another, the CNN pixel fad can only give a viewer so much information. Both due to the angle it was taken (more or less 'eye level'), which is rubbish - and due to the fact that the lighting wasn't great.

1a) When I say the angle was bad, I really mean it. The *only* way you can remotely estimate a crowd size, per a photo, is with an aerial shot at either the same exact time as the two events, or as close as possible. Any other angle winds up cutting off areas where there could be more people, and can also, due to the weather and angle, it can also imply more people. Framing of photos is *everything*.

1b) Back to lighting. It was rubbish. There were probably people there who had on dark clothing (hoodies, jumpers, etc.) and the overcast-ish sky didn't help with being able to 'estimate' them.


2. The PBS video is the best source there frankly. Now sure, you can argue until you are blue (or red...) that it is "biased", but frankly put, there is no full length video available from that vantage point. So we have to go with what we have.

As such, with what we have, the crowed appears to be smaller. Now, can we say this 100%? No. Nor can we say 100% that the crowd was as vast as the oompa loompa and his allies claim. Any half way decent, halfway experienced photographer or videographer will tell you that the factors within these photos and in how they were taken do not really give us a clear cut picture.

"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good..." - Rachel Carson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Demagogue
Member Avatar
Administrator
The funny thing here is that to some extent both sides are correct here. The original Trump admin claim was that the crowd went all the way to the Washington Monument. From their perspective, low on the stage this would be correct.

The overhead photo shows that during the Trump inauguration 5 of the crowd build up areas had significant people in them. During Obama 2009 all 8 areas were mostly full with overflow. Still, from the perspective of the stage these two crowds would look similar in size.

As someone else pointed out, the local turnout must be taken into account. DC has around 700,000 people and they voted over 90% for Obama and less than 5% for Trump. Of those 700,000 people 46% are black. That my friends is 320,000 local African Americans who would be justifiably proud that a fellow African American had been elected President for the first time. If just 10% of those folks chose to ride the metro or a bus or walk over to the Mall then that would be 32,000. I can just about guarantee you that at least 10% of the local African American population showed up for Obama. I would be stunned if it was less than 15-20% and I would not be surprised if over half of them showed for that event. If I were a black man and lived in DC, Baltimore, or Richmond I would have gone too. Hell, if I lived in the area I would have gone even though I did not vote for the guy just because it was a historic day.

If the Trump admin had any sense whatsoever they would use the Pic that Kato posted and say, "You now what, this is the perspective that we saw it from and it is what we were talking about. It is entirely possible that from the overhead the crowd did not look as large".

Then go about the business of running the Government.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr345
Member Avatar

On Sunday, Reuters’ pictures editor Jim Bourg took to social media after “seeing a lot of inaccurate talk and allegations online” about some of the images showing the inauguration crowd.

“I am seeing a lot of inaccurate talk and allegations online about the crowd photos from Friday’s Trump inauguration that are simply not borne out by the FACTS,” Bourg wrote on Facebook. “Only one news organization had a still photographer atop the Washington monument for the inauguration and I assigned him to be there.”
un jour on se souviendra de ca comme on se souvient de ca
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucash
Member Avatar
#NeverTrump
Demagogue
Jan 23 2017, 07:28 PM
The funny thing here is that to some extent both sides are correct here. The original Trump admin claim was that the crowd went all the way to the Washington Monument. From their perspective, low on the stage this would be correct.

The overhead photo shows that during the Trump inauguration 5 of the crowd build up areas had significant people in them. During Obama 2009 all 8 areas were mostly full with overflow. Still, from the perspective of the stage these two crowds would look similar in size.

As someone else pointed out, the local turnout must be taken into account. DC has around 700,000 people and they voted over 90% for Obama and less than 5% for Trump. Of those 700,000 people 46% are black. That my friends is 320,000 local African Americans who would be justifiably proud that a fellow African American had been elected President for the first time. If just 10% of those folks chose to ride the metro or a bus or walk over to the Mall then that would be 32,000. I can just about guarantee you that at least 10% of the local African American population showed up for Obama. I would be stunned if it was less than 15-20% and I would not be surprised if over half of them showed for that event. If I were a black man and lived in DC, Baltimore, or Richmond I would have gone too. Hell, if I lived in the area I would have gone even though I did not vote for the guy just because it was a historic day.

If the Trump admin had any sense whatsoever they would use the Pic that Kato posted and say, "You now what, this is the perspective that we saw it from and it is what we were talking about. It is entirely possible that from the overhead the crowd did not look as large".

Then go about the business of running the Government.
Correct? No, both sides are not 'correct', because no side can conclusively provide credible evidence. Both sides have a point though.

As they say in the field of photography (among other similar fields) - context and angle are everything. As a photographer you control what is seen and how it is seen in how you compose the shot. When it comes to wanting perspective on a photo - that is to say, the best photo/angle that can give the most information per pixel and such, is an aerial shot. Period. End of story. That's it. But the ultimate problem with this discussion, as both you and I pointed out, is there really isn't any great perspective of the event. Yet, ironically, we're all reliant upon our own perspective of said perspective. The photos and evidence provided are not up to standard and really do not offer us much. There is so much that can be argued over because of the shoddy photos, lack of a legitimately comparable aerial photo, etc. that...well, here we are.

:cheers:
"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good..." - Rachel Carson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

But, hey, if it wasn't for this issue, the term 'alternative facts' might never have entered the lexicon ... so there's that. :biggrin:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Trump can't make the press cover him fairly so he does the next best thing and goads them into bizarre serial meltdowns over trivialities.

Ideally the media will still be squabbling and snarking about crowd sizes well into Trump's second term.
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
La Pasionaria
Member Avatar

"Confirms Sean Spicer Correct…"

Really, then why did Spicer reframe his analysis today to say that he wasn't referring to the photo's, per se, but the totality of media available within which people could have followed the inauguration as the basis for his cliam.

That's a vast difference from his hyperventilated performance on Saturday night.

Meanwhile while folks like you are foaming at the mouth and chasing your tails on Obama and the past the start of the Age of Trumpy is off to a piss poor start:

Trump Administration Starts Off Presidency With A Pants On Fire Claim http://reverbpress.com/news/trump-administration-starts-off-presidency-pants-fire-claim/

Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size http://wpo.st/a0UT2

Democrats Turn The Tables With Bill To Stop Trump From Unilaterally Lifting Russian Sanctions: http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/22/democrats-put-republicans-notice-stop-trump-lifting-sanctions-russia.html


:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

La Pasionaria
Jan 23 2017, 09:26 PM
"Confirms Sean Spicer Correct…"

Really, then why did Spicer reframe his analysis today to say that he wasn't referring to the photo's, per se, but the totality of media available within which people could have followed the inauguration as the basis for his cliam.

That's a vast difference from his hyperventilated performance on Saturday night.

Meanwhile while folks like you are foaming at the mouth and chasing your tails on Obama and the past the start of the Age of Trumpy is off to a piss poor start:

Trump Administration Starts Off Presidency With A Pants On Fire Claim http://reverbpress.com/news/trump-administration-starts-off-presidency-pants-fire-claim/

Spicer earns Four Pinocchios for false claims on inauguration crowd size http://wpo.st/a0UT2

Democrats Turn The Tables With Bill To Stop Trump From Unilaterally Lifting Russian Sanctions: http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/22/democrats-put-republicans-notice-stop-trump-lifting-sanctions-russia.html


:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Democrats are "working toward" several things in the legislature....A count of Democrat votes discloses they are wasting their time and should go home for the next four years.............. :dunno:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
La Pasionaria
Member Avatar

Ha, ha, ha...........................HA :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Sucker: Trump tried to force National Park Service to verify his false numbers about crowd size: report http://j.mp/2k99ISY
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

La Pasionaria
Jan 26 2017, 09:56 PM
Ha, ha, ha...........................HA :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Sucker: Trump tried to force National Park Service to verify his false numbers about crowd size: report http://j.mp/2k99ISY
You must be referring to former Park Service administrators............. :lol:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. B
Member Avatar
Member since 2004
Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 03:29 AM
Katoblue
Jan 23 2017, 02:55 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jan 23 2017, 01:41 AM
Lucash just owned the thread
no he didn't I just watched his video and it stopped running while people were still filling up the mall.. sorry but us deplorables are not as gruber gullible as libs are..

now if lucash would like to post the unedited version of that video to show completely to the end when people stopped entering the mall we would then have an honest comparison.. but his video was edited to stop before the mall was finished filling up..

so no he proved absolutely nothing...
Where is your evidence of this?
The gigapixle thingy can only catch part of the crowd..so that is moot
The editing appears to be due to moving the camera farther back
Also...look at the video at 0:49..it shows the crowd just as people are leaving en mass
Pretty consistent with the graphic




Trump just isn't that popular at this point
He certainly has his loyal groupies, but many who voted were holding the proverbial nose doing it.
Did you watch the video? The crowd is larger at the end than we see in the NYT photo. The NYT shows barely anyone in the back tier, and the video shows it half full, before it abruptly ends. Not to mention the thousands who weren't allowed in the gates because violent Leftist protesters were illegally blocking entrances.

Thank you for confirming Carlos Slim's blog is fake news. :unitedstates:
#BringWilmyBack
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply