2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Bernie photos in question --
The links to the old and new photos from the photographer are on other threads. These are the two photos in question, side by side.
In the new picture Bernie (the figure on the left, with is head slightly down) appears to have a book in his hand, tassles on his shoes, and is wearing a sweater. He is seated next to a man on the right of the image who bears a slight resemblance to him. In the old photo with the standing figure Bernie is holding a book in his hand, has tassles on his shoes, and is wearing a boat-neck sweater. The gentleman who he was sitting next to remains seated in the same spot.
The photographer who took these images says they are ALL of Bernie. The pictures back that claim up. Yes, that is Bernie Sanders in those pictures. End of story.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The photographer confirms who was in the photo. Claiming anything else is dishonest.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Hillary supporters unhinged.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Keep telling the lie long enough and hope it becomes the truth.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)and honestly think what he believes, but I believe what my eyes show me and the photographer who took those images says. That is Bernie Sanders.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Odd how that works, isn't it?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Whats at issue is Clinton's ratfuckers' craven use of a photograph to tarnish Sanders' integrity. For a candidate who garnered just 8 percent of New Hampshire Democratic voters who said the most important trait for a candidate was that he or she be honest, the least Clinton and her campaign could do is come clean about how they disgustingly used some unnamed "University of Chicago alumni" and the life partner of Clinton campaign staffer to swiftboat a civil rights hero.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and height, and build, and coloring
and the photographer saying straight out in no uncertain terms that it is him.
Pretty damn slim.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)looks like Bernie. He tends to slouch forward.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and then publishes multiple additional photos of Bernie from the same event.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So....they swapped clothing, shoes and that book between pictures?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)each other in the morning before getting dressed for school. How embarrassing.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)http://www.phaidon.com/agenda/photography/articles/2016/february/02/when-danny-lyon-met-bernie-sanders/
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)he was seated. Is that what you're saying?
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)You look at the totality of the individual images the photographer has now shown, you can see that in many he is seated and in the one he is standing addressing the group. You can tell the photos were taken at different times of the event because the people in the background change but Bernie and the gentlemen I circled remain in a few.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Once I saw the new picture it became absolutely obvious to me as well. This one is a closed case for me.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Clinton people are like the living dead on this
Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Original post)
whatchamacallit This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)That's not Bernie in that shot on the right with the boots. Bernie is the OTHER figure and has a book in his hands, looking down slightly.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)as it's cropped to the head, it's hard to tell which of the two of them is in the corner of the top shot.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Very sharp, different than Bernie's. And he remains in that spot in those two images. Vaguely resembles Bernie at a quick glance.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)we agree
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)35 years of Reaganomics have destroyed the middle class. We are the planet's incarceration nation. Our healthcare system, despite the reforms of the ACA remains a horror show. Our police are out of control. The military industrial complex has locked up all our tax revenue. Our corporations run the government. One of our political parties is overtly nativist and teetering on the edge of fascism. We are plunging into global climate catastrophe.
And we are arguing about a photograph.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)I think it was Capehart and Matthews last night that set me off on this. I have this weird thing about accuracy. We do need to get back to the REAL important stuff.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So they're all playing David Brock now.
Including Skinner making an "I'm just asking" post.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Soon to be replaced by James O'Keefe.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)is that even after the photog said, yes, I took that and he is... they still keep at it.
One in particular "surprises me" since that person claims to want to be a photog. So if they have not taken a class, or worked with a photog I will sort of get it. Otherwise, you know what... you note who you took the photos off, in a photo log, that goes with frame picture and all that.
And back then it was just slightly different in the sense that you did not write this by frame number but by roll and frame number. Digital has made record keeping a tad more messy that is all.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I call this shit stirring.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)slightly waves in the front is the same in both photos, too. Plus - the other guy's ears don't match Bernie's.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Sally Cook, the retired government lawyer University of Chicago alumni who contacted the University of Chicago archives to get the caption of the photo changed, conceded to Time magazine reporter Sam Frizell that she could not "say for certain the man is not Sanders."
So what made it so important to her that she felt she needed to change the caption in order to identify the individual at a 40+-year-old sit in as some long dead acquaintance rather than as Bernie Sanders?
Who then told Sam Frizell, Time magazine's Clinton pool reporter, about this trifling photo flap? What induced Sam Frizell to devote 1000 words to this complete non-story without making any attempt to contact the original photographer?
What then induced the WaPo's Jonathan Capehart, the live in partner of a rich Clinton campaign staffer, to pick up this complete non-story and spin it into a direct attack of Sanders' integrity without making any attempt to contact the original photographer?
Why did corporate cable news then trot out Capehart on 10 different shows to promulgate this complete non-story?