Is the mainstream media lying about inauguration attendance numbers?

is the mainstream media lying about inauguration attendance numbers?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No, you're being a retarded partisan idiot who swallows evident lies in the face of the stark evidence staring you right in the face.

No, ironically Sup Forums is not willing to swallow facts that apply against them
>kill niggers gas jews muh white race

>mainstream media
>lying
lol

damn, so many shills

your explanation for OP pics is?

go watch the video

PBS jumpcut at least an hour out of the footage

Stupid cunts can't even do fake news right.

>is the mainstream media lying about inauguration attendance numbers?

Gee, I dunno user, that's a real noodle scratcher

Yes. Definitely. Anyone who watched it could see exactly that. We did, from start to finish and it was crammed full.

>your explanation for OP pics is?
The one which claims "evening" for the emptying out oft the national mall when a president's inauguration occurs at noon?

Are you referencing the visuals, then, which shows the same conglomerations of people in roughly the same positions when they begin (in the video this is snapshotted from) filing out of the mall? Because the conclusion you take from that is that the spaces were never filled with people.

In the video you can see there's a sudden fade away at 46s, something weird happened there, undeniably

>your explanation for OP pics is?
its over 3 hours of footage shortened to 52 seconds
darkening is due to clouds
people don't even start leaving until 0:48

6am - 9am?

DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING, DEFUND NPR, DEFUND PBS

>darkening is due to clouds

AAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>In the video you can see there's a sudden fade away at 46s, something weird happened there, undeniably
Certainly. They were moving the camera around, that in rapidly advancing time lapse replay appears as sudden interruptions. Which you can find for yourself if you actually looked at the vid, rather than lap up some asinine conspiracy theories passed around at /r/The_Donald or gatewaypundit.

you're right, the start of the video is even earlier than I assumed
so it's at least from 6 am
making it at least 6 hours of footage shortened to 52 seconds
it rained, remember?
gets dark when it rains
because rain comes from clouds

Maybe someone forgot in spite of watching it occur live that the front moved over Washington almost to the second when Trump was sworn in, so much time have they spent ever since then getting a lying political narrative shoved up their asses so that they can go on deflecting from Trump's public fail.

>the front moved over Washington almost to the second when Trump was sworn in

lol


>the clouds took control of the camera and did a jumpcut

>the clouds suddenly made everyone leave just as the speech started

GTFO retard

...

speech was less than 20 minutes
stop being retarded intentionally

No. Its no surprise Obama was incredibly popular and people were really riled up about putting the Bush years behind them.

Trump is pretty unpopular and the weather looked shitty. Even so it would be unrealistic to expect more or the same as Obama.

Here's another from the same vid you have full access to you dumb cunt useful idiot.

>youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg

With the crowds in the same positions they are both before "the cut," and afterwards, only superimposed on each other for the compression of a moving, zooming observing camera in the same frame (noticeable by the two Smithsonian buildings and the different sizes of the capital's dome).

Which are, again, the same half empty sections with the same groupings of people when Trump's thronging millions begin their mass exodus at 0:48.

The first major news story I heard about this after seeing the image online was CBC talking about how the left is under fire for using the early morning image instead of the one of the actual crowd

sorry - but I'll believe the google megapixel proof before some shill ranting that makes ZERO sense.

The weather was shit and nobody really likes Trump,even Bush had more,and if you guys were really that passionate about Trump you wouldn't have let the weather stop you,pussies,i would have stood in a rainstorm for a real man of a president and not some pussy like Trump.

>sorry - but I'll believe the google megapixel proof before some shill ranting that makes ZERO sense.
You mean the picture evidence that shows the lowest camera position possible rather than a high angle one a rational person would want to accurately judge crowd size and depth. That makes much more... sense...

Here. Let's do that one better. We'll use a camera shot taken from keeling level towards the front of a throng and let's just say there's five million people behind it.

sage

Hmm, not enough sense, huh?

Quick question. Which camera angle in general terms is more useful in determining crowd sizes?

Generally speaking, of course.