There are a lot of threads going up about all the 'fakery' of the inauguration and the Oval Office images.

However, most of the examples I've seen so far don't bear up to scutiny. I haven't looked through them all so I'm not saying they're all mistakes, but some of them clearly have multiple explanations which need to be investigated more before we claim them as proof of anything.

When viewing 'evidence' - try to take the opposite viewpoint of the outcome you are hoping to prove. This will allow you to view the material with less bias and spot the errors in assumption that can undermine credibility in the material being presented.

The alternative is to offer up 'proof' of something which is then easily disproved later and we end up looking foolish and gullible.