How in the world is a picture of actual reality a "political statement"? How on Earth can an unedited photo of something that really happened be construed in this way?
Reuters went on record with an (apparently) EXIF-derived timestamp of 12:01:18 EST, and PBS has a seven-hour time lapse substantiating the image. It is not fake.
There have been side-by-side comparisons provided many times over by the same parties at the same vantage points, taken at roughly similar times (tens of minutes at most). The Trump pics, during much warmer weather with a bit of a drizzle, are sparsely populated compared to the Obama pics of roughly the same moment in inaugural event time, and a far colder 28 degrees outside, are far more packed. There's nothing fake happening here. There's even an awesome time lapse covering, I believe, a roughly 7-hour period. There's video and photo evidence of the Pres & VP walking along with empty stands behind and beside them. None of the photographic proof has been doctored—which would make it fake. The only thing fake here are the claims of the proof being fake.
That's a pretty silly question. But I dealt with that in another response to you below. I've not suggested anything of the sort. The Gigapixel is taken from a terrible vantage point for providing an accurate ... hell, not even a rough estimate of the total crowd size. That wasn't the purpose of the picture and it's chosen perspective. That makes it pointless and obvious defensive grandstanding to use it as indicative of anything other than the panoramic view near the main stage. It's the equivalent of choosing the profile photo that makes you look thin when it isn't indicative of all the weight you've gained since that photo was taken. Misleading for the purposes it's being offered.
IMO this is irrefutable evidence of a smaller crowd – which is a non issue... unless the President of the United States spreads falsehoods (formerly known as "lies") in contradiction of reality.
No, it's really not. Because you can't see the distance. And from this vantage point, tricks of perspective make the immediately close crowd the only thing one focuses on. I can see empty ground coverings way off in the distance of the pic. It's not an outlandish claim to make that based on their distance from the camera, seeing the empty space as visibly as one can must mean it's a very large empty space. That's what the pictures and video timelapse from the Washington monument provide—the total viewpoint. This gigapixel from the sidelines is in now way informative as an indicator of total crowd size.
I see. "I refuse your reality and substitute my own". If you can't see that Gigapixel shows radically more people, then I'm afraid I can't help you. :-)
I haven't refused any reality here, friend. Nor am I substituting my own. The Gigapixel shows exactly as many people up front, where it was taken as other photographs do from the same vantage point. And it also concurs with the view on the crowd up front at the stage that is provided from other vantage points where the front of the crowd is visible. It doesn't show radically more. Whatever that means. Radically more than what?
Nobody is disputing that there were a lot of people who were at the front. But it doesn't provide the slightest bit of helpful view on the total crowd size. Because the total crowd isn't in its view. The rows and rows of people in the back are impossible to judge from the Gigapixel's perspective. This is just basic photography. Angle, lens, perspective, all that shit. It matters. The Gigapixel's subject was the main stage and immediate area. It provides no help to the discussion of the total audience.
Ever been to a concert, especially on stage? The throng at the front always feels massive and overwhelming. But you can't fully judge the total attendance from that perspective, especially in a setting like the Mall.
I'm not anti-Trump. In fact, I don't think less people showing up to inauguration means anything significant or negative.
It's just about comparing two photographs. Everything the other person said I agree with. One is about distance, and distance isn't visible in one of the photographs.
Here's the Gigapixel during Trump's inauguration speech: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inaugu...