Oldgateboatdriver said:
I won't comment one way or the other on crowd (or di**) size, as if it mattered, but I am very surprised at you Loachman, for bringing a low angle picture like that in the controversy.
I would have thought that an Army helicopter pilot, of all people, would have known that the closer you are to an horizontal view, the least you can judge appropriately numbers of objects, spacing and existence of gaps. I am sure you know, for instance that when you are flying at tree tops levels over a succession of open fields and forested area, the whole thing looks like it's fully forested unless you happen to be over one of the fields, but from 1000 feet up, you can see all the wooded areas and field s in such a way as to be able to judge their size in relation to one another.
In Washington, while neither is perfect, the view from the Washington monument is orders of magnitude better than the "gigapixel" picture which is taken at a much more horizontal angle, as long as the comparison are made for an equivalent timeframe.
I almost never had the luxury of climbing higher than mid-double-digit feet above ground while engaged in recce operations, the exception being mountainous regions such as northern Norway. We had to become good at estimating and interpreting what we saw and did not see (often just as important) from where we could operate with a reasonable measure of survivability.
The intent behind posting the gigapixel photograph was not to provide an accurate assessment of the size of the crowd, but to prove that the earlier "comparison" photograph was intentionally deceptive, as it indeed was. It is quite clear from the gigapixel image that the empty spaces in the comparison photograph were actually filled with people. It was shot from an adequate angle for the purpose of exposing and proving a media deception.
And that in a city where Mr Trump received, I believe, only 4% of the vote - no surprise, then, that a winning bi-racial Democrat would attract a large turnout in a heavily Democrat-leaning city with a large black population. A larger portion of Mr Trump's supporters are also likely gainfully employed and had commitments elsewhere, as well. Many people showed up just-in-time for the ceremony rather than stand around in cold and damp weather, ie after the deceptive comparison photograph was taken.
Precise crowd comparison is immaterial, as far as I am concerned, anyway. Both were large enough. The press, however, intentionally chose to misrepresent the comparison.
It is that continuing bias that is irksome. It benefits nobody, especially those "news" outlets who are constantly caught in their own lies, yet wonder why their ratings continue to drop. Honest coverage might, perhaps, at least slow that slide, but they seem strangely immune to trying that.
They fib, he tweets, they spew their outrage over his tweets, more people see his tweets and decide upon their value on their own, media ratings drop.
Public-relations judo at its finest, and they are too stupid to realize it.
Mr Trump does not need them in order to get his message out. He has proven that time after time. Their unwitting help is likely appreciated, however.
People underestimated him, and continue to do so. People misrepresented him, and continue to do so. People failed to understand him, and continue to do so.
They did, and still do, all of those things with his supporters as well.
He beat the Republican establishment and the media, and won the Republican nomination.
He beat the deeply-flawed yet "guaranteed" Democrat nominee and the media - all of the "smart" ones - and won the Presidency, and gained Senate, House, and Gubernatorial seats as well.
http://www.steynonline.com/7684/wrong-and-wronger
Wrong and Wronger
by Mark Steyn Jan 25, 2017 at 8:49 am
On the latest edition of The Mark Steyn Show, I begin with The New York Times' and other media's lack of self-awareness about how they got everything wrong these last eighteen months. If I were in their position, I think I'd pause before charging straight ahead and getting the post-election period as wrong as the pre-election. But apparently not.
<snip>
And, if I'd been as wrong as The New York Times et al were about this race until approximately 10.30pm Eastern on election night, I'd be very wary of blundering through Trump's first hundred days with the same indestructible tunnel vision.
