Photos: the crowd at Donald Trump’s inauguration vs. Barack Obama’s

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: UKTruth

Seeing as you have stopped making sense and are no longer attempting to answer direct questions...

Not sure where to go here?

Perhaps read my posts vs. invent claims of what I posted?

Either way...don't have time for either crazy or dishonest..

The sense is simple.
You claimed that Trump's crowd was very weak by Inauguration standards.
The pictures show that Trumps crowd was bigger than 1981, 85, 89, 93, 97, 01, and 05, smaller than 09 and not clear for 2013.

And yet historical photographs and attendance records disagree with your claim and you refuse to provide any evidence to support your claim.

Just saying stuff doesn't make it real.

You've used a photograph for 2009. What's the matter, a pic not good enough for you now when it comes other years?
The pics are clear.

a reply to: UKTruth

We've already established the press did not report the truth,

No, you most certainly have not established any such thing. The only thing you've established is your stubborn rejection of reality.

a reply to: Indigo5

I don't know, you tell me...
You seem to be denying the reality of pics that have decimated your fake claim that Trump's crowd was 'very weak by inauguration standards'.

Why does the time lapse jump around instead of being consistent? Not trustworthy.
Pics of the actual President speaking in front of the crowd for comparisons, please.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

We've already established the press did not report the truth,

No, you most certainly have not established any such thing. The only thing you've established is your stubborn rejection of reality.

They reported that the crowd was 'weak'. Fake News by any standard when the crowd was one of the biggest for an inauguration at that location since they started holding it there.
The truth is always stubborn

originally posted by: UKTruth

The pics are clear.

So...You said the pic in OP was too early?

Again...

HERE IS A FULL TIME LAPSE OF THE CROWDS ARRIVING AND AT THE END OF THE VID YOU SEE THE FLOW REVERSE AND BEGIN TO LEAVE AFTER TRUMP TAKES OATH.



Are you denying a 200+ separate pics over the entire inauguration???

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Why does the time lapse jump around instead of being consistent? Not trustworthy.

efff..>Really?...cuz it is TIME LAPSE

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
I know a capital officer she promised me the numbers.

This should be interesting.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Why does the time lapse jump around instead of being consistent? Not trustworthy.

efff..>Really?...cuz it is TIME LAPSE

Jumps around - even daylight is not consistent.
Pics with the President speaking so we get clear comparisons - pics from reputable sources... like GETTY

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Why does the time lapse jump around instead of being consistent? Not trustworthy.

efff..>Really?...cuz it is TIME LAPSE

Jumps around - even daylight is not consistent.
Pics with the President speaking so we get clear comparisons - pics from reputable sources... like GETTY

OMG you are still on this? Please put your computer away for awhile, settle down...get over it

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Why does the time lapse jump around instead of being consistent? Not trustworthy.

efff..>Really?...cuz it is TIME LAPSE

Jumps around - even daylight is not consistent.
Pics with the President speaking so we get clear comparisons - pics from reputable sources... like GETTY

OMG you are still on this? Please put your computer away for awhile, settle down...get over it

I am happy to continue refuting fake news and propaganda.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yea I'm not talking about the woman's march, and I'm sure as hell not taking into account country-wide numbers of the march and comparing them to an event held solely in DC. What was that you said about dealing in facts? You may be using facts, but you're comparing apples and oranges and frankly, your oranges are irrelevant.

How you can continue to push your "EVERY OTHER INAUGURATION EVER" narrative (love the all caps, by the way; doesn't come off shrill and foot-stampy at all) in the face of actual facts is, frankly, galling. Even vox.com, using Metro's numbers, is giving Trump credit for a quarter million people, which is more than your crowd scientists are saying. (You do understand that it's not an exact science right? They're estimating? Which means they're not hard numbers?) Vox goes on to state that Metro ridership was only slightly less than Bush's ceremony, which again debunks the 'weak' narrative you're pushing.

You do know Reagan had about 10,000 people at one of his inaugurations, right? So even taking your crowd scientist's rock bottom estimate, Trump still had a handful of people more than 10,000.

Politifact says Trump beat Reagan twice

Your crowd scientists are estimating a lower number of people than Metro even carried.

Look man, I know you hate Trump and you happily jump all over every chance you can find (or create) to crap on him, his supporters, or anybody even remotely connected to Trump. But you're massaging your numbers and presenting them in a skewed manner. Your Metro numbers don't support your crowd scientist numbers, and your crowd scientists aren't supporting other numbers from left-leaning media outlets that are giving credit for a quarter million. And then you top that off with "weakest numbers of any inauguration ever" when that's categorically false, and when that's pointed out you resort to caps-locking and bolding at me.

I have zero problem agreeing and pointing out that Trump and his people were lying about the inauguration numbers. I have zero problem pointing out that you are lying, too.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The really funny thing is that the estimate for Clinton 1993 was 800,000.
The estimate they give for trump is 250,000.

The pictures show Trump's crowd was much much larger - shown above

But hey, fake news travels fast/

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Why does the time lapse jump around instead of being consistent? Not trustworthy.

efff..>Really?...cuz it is TIME LAPSE

Jumps around - even daylight is not consistent.
Pics with the President speaking so we get clear comparisons - pics from reputable sources... like GETTY

OMG you are still on this? Please put your computer away for awhile, settle down...get over it

Size is REALLY important to these Trumpites! Funny and sad. Really sad.

a reply to: UKTruth

The estimate they give for trump is 250,000.

Citation please, or you're "fake news".

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Why does the time lapse jump around instead of being consistent? Not trustworthy.

efff..>Really?...cuz it is TIME LAPSE

Jumps around - even daylight is not consistent.
Pics with the President speaking so we get clear comparisons - pics from reputable sources... like GETTY

OMG you are still on this? Please put your computer away for awhile, settle down...get over it

Size is REALLY important to these Trumpites! Funny and sad. Really sad.

You're still here so...what's your excuse? Size queen, too?

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Why does the time lapse jump around instead of being consistent? Not trustworthy.

efff..>Really?...cuz it is TIME LAPSE

Jumps around - even daylight is not consistent.
Pics with the President speaking so we get clear comparisons - pics from reputable sources... like GETTY

OMG you are still on this? Please put your computer away for awhile, settle down...get over it

Size is REALLY important to these Trumpites! Funny and sad. Really sad.

Well you guys brought it up, and are now upset that your fake information is being refuted. Shame.

a reply to: Shamrock6

No. I don't care about the size. I care about the Trump administration's first order of business was to lie to the American people and lie about and belittle the press.

It's a dangerous precedent.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

Why does the time lapse jump around instead of being consistent? Not trustworthy.

efff..>Really?...cuz it is TIME LAPSE

Jumps around - even daylight is not consistent.
Pics with the President speaking so we get clear comparisons - pics from reputable sources... like GETTY

OMG you are still on this? Please put your computer away for awhile, settle down...get over it

Size is REALLY important to these Trumpites! Funny and sad. Really sad.

Well you guys brought it up, and are now upset that your fake information is being refuted. Shame.

Nope. We didn't bring it up. Sean Spicer made a big deal out of size, then lied his a$$ off about it!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

The estimate they give for trump is 250,000.

Citation please, or you're "fake news".

here's the Deputy Comms Dircetor of the NYC Mayor.. Dems pushing fake news... who would have thought it
twitter.com...

Here's the Fake News print champions the Washington Post citing an ex Obama employee saying it's 250,000.

Just a couple of examples

Fake News.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

We've already established the press did not report the truth,

No, you most certainly have not established any such thing. The only thing you've established is your stubborn rejection of reality.

projection.