The Bernie photos in question --

[Hell Hath No Fury]

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]

1. Bruce Rappaport.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/02/11/stop-sending-around-this-photo-of-bernie-sanders/

[Motown_Johnny]

3. Another dishonest post from a Clinton supporter, why am I not shocked?

The photographer confirms who was in the photo. Claiming anything else is dishonest.

[virtualobserver]

4. You are so anti-Bernie that even when the photographer says it is Bernie, you won't believe him

Hillary supporters unhinged.

[Matt_in_STL]

5. Good old Republican tactics

Keep telling the lie long enough and hope it becomes the truth.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. Sorry, Bruce Rappaport may be a very nice man --

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]

12. Bruce Rappaport is conveniently deceased.

Odd how that works, isn't it?

[mhatrw]

34. FIFY and Capehart

What’s 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]

2. Hmm, what are the odds of a College Student wearing shoes and carrying a book?

[Motown_Johnny]

7. Wearing the same sweater, and pants, and collar out of said sweater, and glasses and haircut

and height, and build, and coloring


and the photographer saying straight out in no uncertain terms that it is him.


Pretty damn slim.

[TTUBatfan2008]

16. Even the posture...

looks like Bernie. He tends to slouch forward.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

26. Yeah, that slouch is pretty distinctive.

[virtualobserver]

8. what are the odds that the photographer is lying when he says it is Bernie....

and then publishes multiple additional photos of Bernie from the same event.

[jeff47]

9. Well, the other person isn't wearing those shoes, or carrying a book.

So....they swapped clothing, shoes and that book between pictures?

[Luminous Animal]

13. The exact same clothing and the exact same tasseled shoes. Guess they forgot to call

each other in the morning before getting dressed for school. How embarrassing.

[Ferd Berfel]

14. HOw about the fucking photographer that took the fucking pictures?

When Danny Lyon met Bernie Sanders
http://www.phaidon.com/agenda/photography/articles/2016/february/02/when-danny-lyon-met-bernie-sanders/

[mhatrw]

35. Hmm, what are the odds of David Brock ratfucking for Clinton?

[valerief]

6. So in one picture he was standing and in another (clearly not the same picture as the first)

he was seated. Is that what you're saying?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

15. Yes, it pretty obvious.

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]

18. Thanks. It's pretty obvious to me, too. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. Yeah, that's why I did a side by side --

Once I saw the new picture it became absolutely obvious to me as well. This one is a closed case for me.

[Ferd Berfel]

11. Lying sacks of crap - HOw many times do these lies have to be shot down

http://www.phaidon.com/agenda/photography/articles/2016/february/02/when-danny-lyon-met-bernie-sanders/


Clinton people are like the living dead on this

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. You're looking at the wrong person --

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]

22. Ok, but

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]

25. It's the hairline of the "corner" guy.

Very sharp, different than Bernie's. And he remains in that spot in those two images. Vaguely resembles Bernie at a quick glance.

[whatchamacallit]

27. My bad

we agree

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I'm just flabbergasted that this is again an issue.

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]

23. I hear ya!

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]

24. Well, our local Clinton supporters don't have much to build her up

So they're all playing David Brock now.

Including Skinner making an "I'm just asking" post.

[arcane1]

29. "We Are All David Brock" is the new mantra, it seems.

Soon to be replaced by James O'Keefe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. You know the part that if amazing

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]

31. This is how desperately failing the Clinton campaign is. THIS is the Big Thing! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Pretty much

I call this shit stirring.

[CharlotteVale]

28. The way that his hair is combed forward from the back and

slightly waves in the front is the same in both photos, too. Plus - the other guy's ears don't match Bernie's.

[mhatrw]

33. The depths of this little episode of ratfuckery are truly unfathomable.

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?