2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (Skinner) on Sun May 29, 2016, 11:26 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bunnies
(15,859 posts)
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Then can we assume that some doubt exists about the identification of the man in the photo?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)The slander that Bernie was not a very early leader for African American civil rights got so outrageous that persons went into the archives of the University of Chicago and changed captions on Danny Lyon’s 1962 photos, claiming it was Bruce Rappaport standing in Bernie’s clothing leading the demonstration in the Ad Building. These newly discovered pictures, including close up photographs of the student activists show us exactly what Bernie was and what he remains.
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/more-bernie-civil-rights-photos-found/
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/bernie-sanders-leads-1963-sit-in/
Skinner
(63,645 posts)I would not quibble with the use of the term "slander" in that context.
But does that justifiable anger mean that the photographer is definitely correct about this photo? Does the photographer's recollection trump the friends who claim it is Bruce Rappaport?
cali
(114,904 posts)Lyon is positive. And he has a very keen eye.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)that people are saying is NOT Sanders. Lyon says it is Sanders standing up and gesturing with this hands (Photo A).
Look at the photos at this link. It is my understanding that these photos (just like photo A) were all taken at the sit in.
You can see from the photos, that Sanders is wearing the same clothes, as the clothes in Photo A (dark chenille sweater with white shirt underneath).
Other photos of the sit in:
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/more-bernie-civil-rights-photos-found/
questionseverything
(11,955 posts)part of me wishes bernie would sue capehart for slander, matthews too
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and in effect let that kind behavior happen in future elections go unchecked without a good precedent being set that those knowingly LYING to the public about someone we have to vote on will get punished severely.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the false information about the photograph to retract their statement and make a clear and effective effort to correct the record by publishing that retraction through a means and at a time and place that will receive the same broad coverage and viewership that the original incorrect information about the photo received.
The photographer should be interviewed on television about the photo and what he remembers about Bernie's leadership in the civil rights demonstration at Chigago. That would be the best way to correct the record in my view.
The doubts and lies cannot be allowed to stand. That would be very wrong in my opinion and would place the veracity and reliability of each of the news sources and journalists that spread this incorrect information in doubt.
tblue37
(68,448 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)It is really hard for a public figure to sue for slander.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)The photos were taken in a series, and they would have have to had changed clothing - which is ridiculous to imagine. Skinner, please update the OP to reflect the accurate story and stop smearing Bernie's legacy. Find a real issue to disagree with him on. Like maybe taking SuperPac funds.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)And I think the whole thing is silly. We'll probably never really know for certain. 
Skinner
(63,645 posts)I tend to think that "We'll probably never really know for certain" is the most honest answer for anyone here. This doesn't strike me as a slam dunk for either side.
This strikes me as the type of thing that ought to be hashed out by posting the evidence publicly, like people are doing in this thread.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)It bears little significance on any of us, really.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)So it has some significance to them.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Its just a photograph. *smh*
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Thank you. 
Response to Skinner (Reply #117)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)down to the tassels on his shoes. Not one person has disputed that these are photos of Bernie sitting down but not one person yet has explained how Bruce got into Bernie's clothes.
?w=640&h=444
questionseverything
(11,955 posts) EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)questionseverything
(11,955 posts)whatever career capehart had is gone now,at least for me
the entire thing reminds me of the nyt helping breitbart defund acorn
nyt never retracted that crap either
hedda_foil
(17,013 posts)It's Bernie and you can see for yourself. Links are good things..
I'm very disappointed that Hillary's people would stoop to actual swiftboating in order to ensure the black vote. I hope you, at least, will see what's really going on.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I tend to think that "We'll probably never really know for certain" is the most honest answer for anyone here. This doesn't strike me as a slam dunk for either side.
You are trying to protect Hillary's (Brock's) sleazy campaign behavior.
There is ample evidence in this very thread to show without a doubt that the images are of Bernie. Comparing them with other images of Bernie show the exact details of clothing, shoes, hair, glasses, facial features, gestures, posture...everything can be matched to the other pictures of Bernie.
Please don't play this game. You are better than this.
Arazi
(8,887 posts)His job was to chronicle the movement. How credible would he be if he were getting participants wrong?
Arazi
(8,887 posts)
femmedem
(8,566 posts)He has two different posts on his site regarding this topic.
Here he talks about the photo in question.
Here he shows Bernie wearing the same clothes next to Bruce Rappaport.
I appreciate your looking into this and doing your best to ensure that DU isn't spreading misinformation.
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)You can tell these two guys apart simply from their hair. The one in the lighter colored clothes has straight hair, the other, in the dark sweater, has curly/wavy hair. The mouth area is just like Bernie.
A photographer who is supposed to know the identities of the people he's photographing wouldn't mistake one for the other. Sure, they both have dark hair and glasses, but other than that the differences are obvious.
If it's come down to trying to do this to Bernie, he's hit a big nerve. Go Bernie, go. Keep up the good work. You're winning.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Or are you now hit-and-run posting?
It's more than just "this" photo:
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)the glasses are clearly different. This photo is Bernie.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)The man who took the picture, and the others, states that the person in the figure is Bernie Sanders.
What more do you need?
Capehart and Rappaport's friends, and the person who changed the caption claim they KNOW it was the other guy and the guy who took the picture en route to establishing himself as a seminal figure in the history of the Civil Rights movement says THEY ARE WRONG, or something else.
Who are these people? What are they doing this for? Who knows.
How do you ignore the direct statement of the person who was directly involved in the picture taking?
It's fine if you don't like Sanders. Lots of people don't. But please don't turn your eyes away from the facts in the situation.
The guy who took the picture says its Sanders. Why is there, how could there be, a question past that point.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)The person who took the photo, or the person 47 years later who didn't take the picture but has everything to gain by making hay over a picture he didn't take.
cali
(114,904 posts)He could not be clearer about this. He has stated definitively, in his blog and in emails that those photo are ones he took and that the person in question is Bernie Sanders.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Under the 2nd picture, the photographer says this:
I took the photograph of Bernie Sanders speaking to his fellow CORE members at that sit-in. Bob McNamara, a close friend and CORE activist, is in the very corner next to me in the picture. Across the room from me is another campus photographer named Wexler, who taught me how to develop film. I photographed Bernie a second time after he got a haircut, as he appeared next to the noble laureate and chancellor Dr. George Beadle. Time Magazine is now claiming it is not Bernie in the picture but someone else. It is Bernie, and it is proof of his very early dedication to justice for African Americans. The CORE sit-in that Bernie helped lead was the first civil rights sit-in to take place in the North.
Sounds to me like the photographer is say that the guy standing and speaking is Bernie.
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/bernie-sanders-leads-1963-sit-in/
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)See how that works?
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)and we all know that there were many witnesses who testified to the fact that John Kerry was a coward and not the war hero that he truly was.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
MelissaB
(16,595 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The part that bothers me is that Skinner is trying to find away to legitimize this attack to continue here on DU.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)But keep thinking we're all going to sweep this under the carpet and support her.
you are...
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)would we be seeing such overwhelming concern inan OP?
dogman
(6,073 posts)The reported text originally identified Sanders. After Rappaport's widow and friends complained it was changed to the text you cite. A larger question to me is who changed it and why? Was the photographer asked by the person making this judgement?
K Gardner
(14,933 posts)all I have to do is look at that sweater with the stretched out neck, drooping to the right side.
U of Chicago could very well have made a mistake at the request of Rappaport's widow.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)There is no doubt about it being Bernie in that photo.
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/more-bernie-civil-rights-photos-found/
None at all.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)photographer providing multiple pictures. This does nothing to support HRC, and it's clearly a hack job on Bernie. Please just modify your post, and thank those that helped answer your questions. Allowing this nonsense to go on, just puts a further divide in the community, and encourages more of the same.
Arazi
(8,887 posts)
The OPs accusing BS supporters of making a mountain out of a molehill are proven wrong with Skinner stepping in here, like this
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)posts showing that angle, that close-up, that verified statement will be good enough. Some very well crafted people that are fine with misleading or being misinformed/not corrected on the issue will get to carry the torch to try and destroy his credibility. And for what? A falsehood? I wonder how they sleep at night? What if someone came at them like that?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Come on Skinner. You've been confronted with the truth and now you have run away.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Giving this ridiculous smear ANY credence whatsoever seems as desperate as some of Hi11ary's other off-putting gambits, like the discredited "landing under sniper fire" story and the offensive "they are often super-predators" statement. The weasel words of Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright are just as off-putting.
How is it that Hi11ary's supporters are NOT embarrassed and/or disgusted by these missteps?
K Gardner
(14,933 posts)awaiting transcript.
krawhitham
(5,087 posts)Quite the crazy day. I've intrvu'd ex-wife of Bruce Rappaport AND the photographer of the disputed "Sanders" photo. Now transcribing.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Debunked.
It's him. The photographer said so. And provided ankther photo of him from the same time period.
It's purely a political smear.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)There is the one of him standing up and 4 of him sitting down.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Seems like WaPo and TIME got pwnd.
dchill
(42,660 posts)It's not a smear if you believe it.
Iggy Knorr
(247 posts)Right here in river city!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They say the photographer debunked it but it is a different photo. A closer shot.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Danny Lyon is lying?
https://dektol.wordpress.com/danny-lyon/
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I think his wife can spot him in a photo and bernie did not say it was himself. Por eso, creo que es Bruce Rappaport.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)wow.
bravenak
(34,648 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)I dont give a shit who's in the picture. Do you?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am selfishly trying to get the attention away from old photo and back onto black voters and our issues. It is very important to me that we get that attention.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)But I dont see wanting to talk about issues that effect millions of Americans as selfish. 
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)I'm so sick and tired of that game.
bvf
(6,604 posts)To someone with nothing but a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Remember when you said it was outrageous to attack people who participated in the civil rights movement?
Good times. Ah well.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bernie did not say that it is Bernie.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I never said anyone was beyond criticism. That was your claim.
So how'd he steal Sanders's clothes and trick the photographer?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Lets just wait for Capehart
Rocky the Leprechaun
(222 posts)Now we mock you for Capeheart.
Understand?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)MelissaB
(16,595 posts)Thanks!
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)
P.S.
If you think it would help anything, you're free to make such a thread.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I do remember during Rachel Maddow's forum, there was a picture from the past of each candidate presented to them and they were asked if they remember what they may have been thinking at the time the picture was taken.
This sit in picture, where someone is standing and looks a lot like a young Bernie, was provided to Bernie for his comment. I do believe Bernie said he doesn't remember that picture or doesn't know if that was him.
I've tried to find transcript of the "forum" and cannot access YouTube from this device....I'd bet it can be found.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I sometimes mistake my cousin for me in old photos. Only at weird angles, though, we dont look alike face on
valerief
(53,235 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bernie does not say it's Bernie. I believe his wife.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Case closed.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)When did they marry? Was she around then? Was she there that day? Because the photographer was.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bernie does not say this is himself
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)It is so clearly Bernie in the 4 other photos taken face-on of him sitting in the same room on the same day as the one of him standing and gesturing with his hands (gee a 53-year-long habit that was driving some Hillary supporters nuts here last night). Bernie is wearing the exact same clothes as when he was standing: dark sweater, white shirt, shoes with tassels and dark, same shaped glasses. Bob McNamara is crouching next to him in 3 of those photos and wearing a light colored sweater and dark, differently shaped glasses. Lyon states that when he shot the photo of Bernie standing, Bob McNamara was standing next to Lyon in the corner.
Even if I never saw these photos, that are provably of a young Bernie Sanders, I would trust the photographer who was there and has the negatives, because his job is to accurately caption photos with names, dates and places. But then I worked on a student newspaper. No need for you to have. Just Trust. Your. Own. Eyes.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)If he is, then of course his motivation would be to aid Bernie. He would be more credible if he were not a Bernie supporter in this particular case.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They were not close to euther man personally, so they are not a good source to identify.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)As far as I'm concerned it's still unresolved.
I do hope his widow is not harassed by Bernie supporters but given past behavior...
bravenak
(34,648 posts)tblue37
(68,448 posts)same clothes!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Lets just wait for Capehart, he spoke to the wife and the photog.
frylock
(34,825 posts)womp-womp.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Seriously.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
JudyM
(29,785 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I do not care who it is. Bernie can say 'it was me!' And I'll be like oh good. Now lets talk black voter issues and voting out judges that give long sentences for drug crimes. So lets ask bernie to say that and lets move on please.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)yes he is, no he isn't round-e-round should stop.
That's why posts are being hidden on this nonsense.
And I agree that drug offenses / incarcerations are insane.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)Human issues. You're over-playing your hand.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)She's one of the smartest and wittiest posters here at DU.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)That makes for robust, lively discussion. That's why I enjoy her progressive voice here at DU. I benefit from hearing different opinions within our community.
abakan
(1,996 posts)Because you don't want to be convinced. There is nothing anyone at this, point can do or say to convince you of what you can clearly see, but reject because it doesn't fit your narrative.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)puts up a blog link as "proof". Life is too short to go down those rabbit holes.
dogman
(6,073 posts)
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)If you compare this shot of Bernie
With the bottom right of this
It seems clear Rappaport was speaking and Bernie there and listening
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(131,199 posts)That should settle the matter.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Bernie seated. They were both there, the whole debate is silly.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(131,199 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)and it isn't under dispute so far, then the guy on the bottom right seated is also Bernie.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)The two people in the bottom right corner of the photo whom are wearing glasses look nothing like Bernie. Secondly, they're so cropped off from the photo I can't see how you can be so certain.
Point is, the photographer has released new photos, of Bernie, that look exactly like the Bernie standing and speaking.
The one standing and speaking also has the exact same demeanor as Bernie, height, big feet, hand gestures, slight curve of the back and mannerisms.
It's the photographers job to know who's who... We have other evidence that confirms Bernie participated in these events, why is this photo, which was never disputed before, now suddenly a big deal because 2 people who have ties to Hillary Clinton have called it into question?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)It seems pretty obvious to me though.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I guess they forgot to call each other before getting dressed for school.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Both guys are not only dressed similarly but both have short dark hair and glasses. But the guy seated clearly is the same guy as the one above identified as Bernie.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)down to the tassels on his shoes IS Bernie.
There is no other "Bernie" seated in the photo where he is standing up. When he WAS seated, he was sitting with the girl in the hooded parka and the guy wearing the light sweater and glasses.
While Bernie is speaking,you can see them seated slightly to his left in front of him. When he is seated, they guy in the sweater is shown talking to him and we see the back of the girl in her parka.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The seated guy you are talking about looks nothing like Bernie.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I don't see any evidence from that photo that Bernie is seated at the bottom right. ??? Don't think so.
demwing
(16,916 posts)For what you're saying to be true, Bernie would have had to swap his clothes with another person.
I don't believe for a moment that you actually believe that.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)according to the photographer.
"...I photographed Bernie a second time after he got a haircut, as he appeared next to the noble laureate and chancellor Dr. George Beadle..."
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/bernie-sanders-leads-1963-sit-in/
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,494 posts)Autumn
(49,019 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)
Green ellipse = Bernie
Red octagon = Not Bernie
Blue rectangle = Book that the Speaker is holding
Red/Yellow arrow = wristwatch Bernie is wearing
We can all agree that the guy in photo#3 and photo #4 is Bernie Sanders.
Green ellipse guy (AKA Alleged Bernie Guy #1, or ABG1) from photo#1 is dressed exactly the same as the known Bernie from photo #3. They have the same hair, the same glasses, and are sitting in the exact same spot and in the exact same position - a spot on the floor that is conspicuously empty when Bernie guy #2 stands to speak in photo#2.
Alleged Bernie Guy #2 (ABG2) from photo #2 is wearing the same exact clothes as the known Bernie from photo #4. Only difference is the length of the hair, which the photographer explains in his notes, commenting that Bernie got a haircut and that the photo was taken on a different day than the rest. Why then are the guys in the two photos wearing the same clothes? Really? Are we talking about the same Bernie Sanders? The man that owns 1 suit, 2 ties, and no more than 3 pair of clean underwear?
Red octagon guy in photo#1 has a part in his hair. Clearly not the known Bernie from photo #3.
Red octagon guy in photo#2 is the same RO guy from photo #1, has a different hair line and length than the known Bernie from photo #3.
Speaker's book is clear in photo#2, but is hard to see in photo #1. There is a shadow behind ABG1's hand in photo #1. There's something small and white in that hand, something exactly the same shape and size as the book in photo #2.
Bernie's watch from photo#3 is visible on the wrist of ABG1, and on known Bernie from photo #4
Simple.
kcr
(15,522 posts)The fact that Rappaport's wife and friends, and Bernie's friends who were there and knew them both say it's Rappaport also make me lean toward it's Rappaport and the photographer is mistaken in his memory.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Methinks this is a miscalculation ....
Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #19)
jberryhill This message was self-deleted by its author.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)The slander that Bernie was not a very early leader for African American civil rights got so outrageous that persons went into the archives of the University of Chicago and changed captions on Danny Lyon’s 1962 photos, claiming it was Bruce Rappaport standing in Bernie’s clothing leading the demonstration in the Ad Building. These newly discovered pictures, including close up photographs of the student activists show us exactly what Bernie was and what he remains.
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/bernie-sanders-leads-1963-sit-in/
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/more-bernie-civil-rights-photos-found/
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Go to the photographer's page. He added additional shots of Bernie at the event where the picture of Bernie standing and speaking to the crowd took place. You will see that in the close-up photos the shoes Bernie is wearing with a small tassle. You can see them very clearly in the above photo. It is Bernie, The photographer says so and the boat-neck sweater and shoe tassles say the same thing.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)It's not that complicated to me.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Maybe you will be able to see better.
I know it's hard when you have your heart set on believing something, to admit you were wrong.
Even to yourself.
eShirl
(20,421 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)If you see Bernie standing there, then cool. It seems pretty obvious to me Bernie is seated in the shot, and a bunch of people who knew them both said Rappaport is speaking. They were both there.
eShirl
(20,421 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)Bernie. Because it's him in both pictures. Sheesh, why would you call the photographer a liar?
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Look at the photos.
If you don't see Bernie, then fine. You don't. But I do. Very clearly.
K Gardner
(14,933 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Looks like a woman with cat eye glasses.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts) 
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)It's really hard to tell with that pic. Unfortunately both subjects in the photo seem to be wearing glasses with that tortoise shell design.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)so it seems insane that people have been alerting and hiding posts on discussions about it.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)there are other pictures of Bernie wearing the sweater and tassels shoes. I just looked at an un-cropped of the photo and the kid in the corner has straight hair, boots without tassels, and an unzipped parka.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Same hair, glasses, everything.
I am afraid you are mistaken.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)according to the photographer. Danny Lyon was the photographer for this student group.
The one you show first was actually the later photo, taken after Bernie had gotten his hair cut. Lyon, the photographer, states that, when he shot the bottom photo, Bob McNamara was standing in the corner right next to Lyon.
Four other photos were taken that same day showing Bernie sitting down in that same room, wearing the exact same clothes and shoes, down to the tassels on the shoes, as the person McNamara's widow is claiming was her husband. Crouching next to the seated Bernie in 3 of those 4 photos IS Bob McNamara in a light colored sweater and dark, but different glasses. Unless she married Bernie, that is not her husband, who has died long ago. Even if the photos weren't clearly of the same person, I'd believe the photographer, who has the negatives, over someone with a 53 year old memory of a long-dead husband and who has not stated she was even there at this event.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Remind me to not ask you any questions ...
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)We're always happy to get an email from Danny Lyon, the great American photographer, credited with inventing what became known as 'the new journalism' back in the 1960s. Lyons photographs of society's outsiders and its dispossessed and downtrodden have become legendary over the years, and he remains to this day a peerless - and fearless - chronicler of human integrity, dignity and resistance.
He sent us a link to a couple of photographs he took of Democrat contender Bernie Sanders back in the early 1960s when the then student activist was talking at a gathering of students holding a sit in in protest at institutional racism againt black students in Chicago. This is what Danny said:
"In 1962 and the spring of 1963 I was the student photographer at the University of Chicago, making pictures for the yearbook, the Alumni Magazine and the student paper, The Maroon. By the summer of 1962 I had taken my camera into the deep South, and become the first photographer for SNCC.
"That winter at the University of Chicago, there was a sit-in inside the administration building protesting discrimination against blacks in university owned housing. I went to it with a CORE activist and friend. The sit in was in a crowded hallway, blocking the entrance to the office of Dr. George Beadle, the chancellor.
"I took the photograph of Bernie Sanders speaking to his fellow CORE members at that sit-in. Bob McNamara, a close friend and CORE activist, is in the very corner next to me in the picture. Across the room from me is another campus photographer named Wexler, who taught me how to develop film.
"I photographed Bernie a second time after he got a haircut, as he appeared next to the noble laureate and chancellor Dr. George Beadle. Time Magazine is now claiming it is not Bernie in the picture but someone else. It is Bernie, and it is proof of his very early dedication to justice for African Americans. The CORE sit-in that Bernie helped lead was the first civil rights sit-in to take place in the North."
<snip>
http://www.phaidon.com/agenda/photography/articles/2016/february/02/when-danny-lyon-met-bernie-sanders/
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)to lie and cheat just to boost his own ego.............. whatever.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(131,199 posts)I can't think of a better source than that. Bernie's participation in the civil rights movement is also described here:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/bernie-sanders-core-university-chicago
There has been a Swiftboat-ish attempt to minimize Bernie's extensive involvement in the movement. I hope the fact that the photographer himself has set the record straight will put an end to it, and that Capehart and the WaPo will retract their stories.
TubbersUK
(1,517 posts)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)There's no there there, to quote Gertrude Stein.
I will be posting this on FB to help counter this BS smear.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
TubbersUK
(1,517 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I wonder how many click$ it had earned?
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)so we should take the word of a political hack with an agenda.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Certainly similar looking, but the hair looks very different - very curly in the first set of pictures, not at all curly in the last picture.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)explain why the man who took the picture is the only person they did not consult about the subjects of the photo. That is the first and only thing that they needed to do. They did not even bother. Can you explain to me why they would offer grand theories without consulting the photographer? Do you feel that is proper practice?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Or does he?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)The sudden concern over jury results is very curious.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)who just got tanked on this thread
I got by a close vote too.
There is some really good Celtic whiskies
from Ireland and Scotland,,,,,,,,,,that makes us think
but this is a bitter sour brew he asks us to drink
with this OP............
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Two other alumni, Sally Cook, class of 1966, and Robin Kaufman, class of 1965, also said they believed the photo showed Rappaport. Since the image does not show the man’s face, the alumni conceded that it was difficult to say for certain the man is not Sanders.
"Hey, he's a picture of one of your classmates from 50 years ago; you can't see his face, but doesn't it kind of look like Bruce?" Quality journalism there. Why bother contacting the well renowned photographer who took the picture (and now we're being told that the photographers word should hold the same weight as students who weren't at the event).
One classmate from the article was there:
So Time says that Stark is sure it's him, but the quote from Stark they use is him saying that his reaction (to a photograph were the face isn't shown) is that it looks like him. Also kind of makes me wonder what question was asked.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)This is the beginning and the end of the issue.
libtodeath
(2,892 posts)[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
yodermon
(6,153 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)But in combination, make it very unlikely that he's anyone but Bernie. The tassels are probably the strongest evidence, since so few others seem to have them. The collar in combination with the sweater and sleeves sticking slightly out, well it's difficult to believe that was anyone but Bernie.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and clearly on the shoes in the contested photo. I'm sure someone will show up with 1962 tasseled shoe sales stats.
MgtPA
(1,022 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
MgtPA
(1,022 posts)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
MgtPA
(1,022 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)for keeping this going.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Sorry Skinner, but you really do need to apologize for this thread.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts) 
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)will have an arrest record bestowed upon him.
valerief
(53,235 posts)and here
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/bernie-sanders-leads-1963-sit-in/
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)IllinoisBrenel
(51 posts)When the photographer, who is even respected by John Lewis, says it's Bernie, it's Bernie! End of story!
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Early selfie?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)intheflow
(30,249 posts)And yes, it's how people too selfies back in the day.
http://www.guidetofilmphotography.com/cable-release.html
Also, sometimes photographers gave other people their cameras so they could have a record of themselves at events.
But really, the simplest explanation, given the angle of the photo, is that the person nearest the photographer would be captured in the corner of the photo.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
LexVegas
(6,962 posts)The photographer is taken at his word.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)there is photographic evidence to support it.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(131,199 posts)All he said was that he did not know or meet Bernie during the '60s when he was a civil rights leader. But there's no reason they should have met; Lewis was working in the South and Bernie was in Chicago, working with CORE. He was one of probably thousands of young students who were involved in the movement and it's not surprising Lewis didn't know him. Bernie also never claimed he did know Lewis then, but his involvement in the civil rights movement in Chicago is well-documented.
There are some, however, who have used Lewis' fairly innocuous comment to cast doubt on Bernie's work for civil rights, and that is nefarious. It has the stench of David Brock all over it.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,996 posts) passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts) DemocratSinceBirth
(101,996 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)in this case. He is the guardian of the PRIMARY SOURCE to use historic research terms. The university made a mistake and given the the University of Chicago has a top notch history program. I expect them to correct that error now that the photographer, who TOOK THAT PHOTO and other photos, has identified them as being of Bernie Sanders.
As to Capehart, I am sorry, but my estimation of him has gone down a few notches. And that will not be corrected until he corrects that error.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)which he should after posting this .....................IF HE REALLY WANTS TO
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is no secret.
he is also an operative for the clinton campaign. so that is ok with me. It's the family business
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)He is now pushing a lie.
Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #136)
Post removed
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)His preferences are his personal choice, but a little transparency is warranted as owner of a public forum.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so it is what it is, But I agree, openness is nice.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)To be honest, I'm feeling a little shaken. I have revered DU & considered it to be a neighborhood, a trusted place for almost 12 years. And I don't recognize it right now.
Feel like a schmuck.
MelissaB
(16,595 posts) 
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Backing a different candidate is one thing, but Skinner doing goes beyond the pale and this feels really sickening. I thought the man had more scruples than that.
neverforget
(9,516 posts)Add me to that growing list
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1216121
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling the creator of DU sickening and accusing him of not having scrupples? Vote to hide this rudeness.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 12, 2016, 05:00 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Are you kidding? The creator of a site like this I am sure is capable of defending him or herself against criticism.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)If rude was alertable this would be a lonely board indeed. And I'm not so much saying Skinner has a lack of "scrupples" as expressing disappointment in a person I have always admired.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)scrumpy jack cider from 😜
Mosby
(19,491 posts)Anywhere other than DU a comment like that about the owner gets you shit-canned.
Tell me I'm wrong.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts) Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I've seen similar statements made about Markos over at Daily Kos without the person making them getting banned.
Mosby
(19,491 posts)lol.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Like I'm going to waste hours of my life searching old archives from several years back just to make you happy.
Go search for them yourself, you're the one who made the claim that it simply wasn't possible that any other human out there running a website isn't as gloriously fair as Skinner.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Where one of them liked the imaginary steak better than humans.
I'm losing my religion with DU
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)MelissaB
(16,595 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Unlike the posters who started this rumour, and were hidden as a result, he doesn't have any ulterior motives AFAIK.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)trying not to appear too biased but this was a low blow. I can't believe he would post such garbage.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)This>>>
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)but that doesn't necessarily reflect one's soul
as we know in grade school
Oh.............BTW............. thanks everyone for the hearts you gave me............No really.........I do mean that
But you got to admit the irony.
Squinch
(60,064 posts)People have been being penalized and hidden for posting true things for months now when those things don't support Bernie. You are just noticing it?
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)You can see it's him.
TubbersUK
(1,517 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)EXACT SAME OUTFIT that fit him THE EXACT SAME WAY"--I'm starting to think we've gone down a rabbit hole.
delrem
(9,688 posts)orchestrated by the likes of David Brock. And Capeheart, who is personally connected with the Clinton campaign.
Brock answers *directly* to the Clinton campaign, and his superpac operation covers the internet. It has a shitload of money to spread around and it's spreading it *now*. DU is an internet site, very core for Democratic party politics whatever might be said about it being "only a forum", and it is run by very solidly connected Hillary Clinton third-way DLC supporters. They are NOT progressives. You had better believe that they get the memos with the $$.
So no, not a rabbit hole. Just the cold reality of third-way politics in 2016.
But it's dismaying! The entire Hillary Clinton argument seems to boil down to "the Republicans do it, so that makes it OK" -- on every issue from the most trivial to the most important. Here they are applying the sleaziest swiftboating ratfucking techniques that have *ever* been used to attack Bernie's history, to deny and piss all over his history, and this follows on their "BernieBro" smears, their innuendos about racism, sexism, and the entire smear that's been going on for 8 months now. 8 months! None of it is an accident. This OP isn't an accident.
It's always followed by a slew of loyalty oath posts - to ice the cake.
If we reward it, then that will be the future of the Democratic party.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)and pledge to support the nominee!" posts--only Clinton supporters say that. "Gosh, it's getting ugly, let's all take a step back and remember we're all Democrats!" Who can't see through that?
Response to Skinner (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That is the real question. Obviously they have low standards and wanted to push a narrative without doing any checking of facts. As a result you have people attacking a private citizen's reputation and I'm not really keen on that.
Donkees
(33,745 posts)It's his video recollecting the march....
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Why are people trying to debunk whether Bernie fought for civil rights? He clearly fought for civil rights. Other than a campaign tactic I don't understand why this is being questioned.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Hard to do research on something if DUers are desperately trying to hide that topic from even being available to discuss.
"So, before anyone else gets their posts hidden..."
It's your website friend; if you choose to use it, you have all the power in the world to stop allowing the wholesale hiding/banning of threads based purely on disagreement.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Do you believe he is being dishonest now? Do you believe two men, both student civil rights activists at the same events, with the same haircut and glasses, also wore the same dark boat-necked sweaters with white-collared shirts that just happen to hit at the waist and neckline in the exact same way? Step back and look at this, it seems crazy to put so much effort into proving this ISN'T Bernie Sanders, doesn't it?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)the photographer, saying it's Bernie, and a lot of whining and digging in of heels to the contrary.
But what's worse is that this is a crappy and devicive tactic...fucking low Rovian tactic... that some can't/won't let go.
And they get their posts hidden as a result?
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Which, in English, can also mean "despicable."
K Gardner
(14,933 posts)how it angles off to a "v" on the side. This has gotten ridiculous beyond ridiculous.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I could truly care less if it is him. I don't question Sanders involvement in the civil rights movement. The picture thing seems to just be a distraction. If Sanders folks are going to claim this is a sign of something I will simply say it isn't going to come off all that well. Ask Trayvon how much impact Sanders or Clinton have had on Civil Rights.
I think the white duel for black cred has become beyond disrespectful.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I do know that there was another photo showing a person who looks like Sanders marching a little behind MLK himself in one of MLK's marches, that someone noted was where he was misidentified as such. Are you sure that you aren't referencing Sanders comments on that OTHER photo? Otherwise, I don't believe your attribution of Sanders' comments to these photos without a link to establish that claim.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128099366#post29
Which questions whether Sanders was actually known to be following MLK that closely or not.
The person shown in the photo looks like Sanders, but circumstances seem to point to him not being here specifically, even though he was marching in one of MLK's marches.
So, I don't think there's any record of Sanders denying he's the person in the photos referenced in the OP here.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Autumn
(49,019 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)mcar
(46,345 posts)People were posting in good faith and didn't deserve to have their posts hidden. Can you wave your Admin wand and undo that? I'd hate to see more good DUers on timeout, particularly when they didn't deserve at least one hide.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I think savaging him without consulting him was very wrong for Matthews to do. Very.
So called journalists had questions about a photograph but they never ask the very famous photographer about his photo? How is that good practice?
Response to brooklynite (Reply #121)
TubbersUK This message was self-deleted by its author.
R B Garr
(18,105 posts)about it in another thread, but you got a hide for that?! Seriously unbelievable...
Sanders spokesman, Devine, was asked why it took their campaign so long to delete the Sanders ID under the picture that his supporters are still circulating. Devine just dodged saying it represented a sit-in that was discussed at that part of the video.
Further, enough people came forward to the University saying it wasn't Sanders, including the widow of the man in the picture. The idea that the Sanders' campaign was going to let that misrepresentation slide is very dishonest. 
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)That the negatives and proofs lying around his house were unlabeled or mislabeled?
Wow. Just plain wow.
I'm 62. I couldn't identify with certainty any of the people I went to college with. I only can recognize a very few I went to high school with.
Fronkonsteen
(75 posts)So Sanders and Rappaport share the exact same hair, the exact same glasses, the exact same shirt and sweater and the exact same tasseled shoes? Which one is Bridget Fonda and which one is Jennifer Jason Leigh?
Or is it Sanders standing in the photo, as attested to by the actual photographer who was actually there?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Danny Lyon has had solo exhibits at the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Art Institute of Chicago, the Menil Collection, the M. H. de Young Memorial Museum in San Francisco and the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona. He twice received a Guggenheim Fellowship; a Rockefeller Fellowship, Missouri Honor Medal for Distinguished Service in Journalism and a Lucie Award.
Stubbornly Practicing His Principles of Photography
By RANDY KENNEDYAPRIL 24, 2009
Among a group of revolutionaries whose work rose to prominence in the late 1960s and ’70s and transformed the nature of documentary photography — a group that includes friends and colleagues of Mr. Lyon’s like Mary Ellen Mark and Larry Clark — the idea of conscience has been imbedded more deeply in Mr. Lyon’s photographs than in those of all but a few of his contemporaries.
At a time when picture magazines were still a holy grail for young photographers, Mr. Lyon, self-taught, began his career as the first staff photographer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. A week after hitchhiking south in 1962 at the age of 20 he was in jail with other protesters in Albany, Ga., next to the cell of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And Mr. Lyon’s first book, the classic “Bikeriders,” made after spending more than two years as a member of the Outlaws motorcycle gang, was not just a pioneering example of New Journalism but, as he later described it, an attempt “to destroy Life magazine” and what he saw as its anodyne vision of American life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/arts/design/26kenn.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=danny%20lyon&st=cse
Danny Lyon: The World Is Not My Home
For the past five decades the photographer Danny Lyon has produced a mix of documentary photographs and film—both politically conscious and personal. As the artist turns 70 this year, a coinciding exhibition will open at the Menil Collection in Houston.
http://time.com/3787324/danny-lyon/
His work can be seen here. It's an American treasure.
https://dektol.wordpress.com/
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)...it's sad how badly some want it NOT to be Bernie.
Whatever.
It was a long time ago.
Either way, it doesn't in the least diminish his record on civil rights.
Either way it doesn't change that he clearly sees injustice as an affront to humanity;
each of us is a human being that matters.
Bernie is the real deal.
And the attacks are coming in full force,
because the insiders know they just might lose control of their gravy train.
Enough.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)that's a Hillary Clinton WIN!!!
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,494 posts)... himself to trolling Sanders supporters via Twitter. A real grown up, that one.
He's reduced himself to political hack.
Furthermore, he's a political hack whose husband works for Hillary's campaign but never discloses that fact in his appearances on MSNBC.
And what happened to "you take your chances"?
People are using this photo kerfuffle to smear a man with a 50 year record of civil rights activism. Don't you think THAT figures in to the juror's decision?
Since when is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the standard for voting hide? Seems to me it's very possible the jurors invoked the "d-bag clause"
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)
Beartracks
(14,653 posts)Heck, he still makes those same facial expressions today.
Interesting to me is that the main photo in question seems to be one where you can't see his face very well. But, in context with other photos taken at the event, there is no question that the young man standing and speaking is Sanders.
Making assertions about things that are taken out of context is a hallmark of silly political attacks.
Thanks for posting these other photos.
==========
me b zola
(19,053 posts)person's lifelong activism. Just rewrite history. I mean, WTH.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Those extra photos prove it's him.
MelissaB
(16,595 posts)
Skinner
(63,645 posts)It looks to me like we have the photographer saying one thing and friends of Bruce Rappaport saying another. So I think the most we can say is that we don't know for certain either way.
There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that Bernie Sanders was active in the civil rights movement. But that doesn't mean he's definitely the guy in that specific photo.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)He doesn't need any stinking badges
Otherwise he would say something.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)maybe this is water testing of a sort ya know should we continue this or should we make it go away, ya know like the data theft thing slow that 'fast' boat down maybe put it in dry dock
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)a neo liberal neo con brain worm that destroys rational and logical reality.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
So, now Skinner has an infectious brain disease that destroys reality? The owner of this site? This is so totally out of control. Please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 12, 2016, 09:45 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attacks on anyone should be hidden
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Skinner can take care of himself.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF?...this alert is over the top...Skinner is not mentioned at all,
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Got to be something better than in the meddle or did I mean middle?
Actually I didn't talk about Chem trails and aluminium
droppings from the sky that causes that infection to the brain......LOL
Man I just made it... thanks for the news.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)The message
Work on what has been corrupted
number 18........... KU
I will as an old carpenter/cabinet maker will think about that.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And usually thought provoking.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)but always be careful the oracles have a sense of humor.
Including the Greeks or Athenians who consultanted
the Drug induced women of the Delphi on their misadventures on Sicily.............. When they said...................
well I'll let everyone chase that story.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)are creating a very sticky mess this evening.
Rim Job must be turning green with envy.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)and I think maybe that's true.
I'm going to save it:
Ichingcarpenter
"Maybe its an infectious disease of a neo liberal neo con brain worm that destroys rational and logical reality.™"
delrem
(9,688 posts)There's just too much money involved for it not to be.
And the lines from Hillary Clinton's campaign -> David Brock -> DU and other Dem sites are like 12 lane highways.
I don't like what this OP shows, though.
I don't see how DU can survive long. I think it just had its jumping the shark moment.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)And my eyes are open, now. And I'm pissed.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)Absolutely.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)How do we know?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)''they' (from his perspective) all look alike
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)photos of Bernie sitting at the exact same event? Same exact clothes down to the tassels on the shoes.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)it helps the problems with swift boating.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)he copied his posture and hand gestures too.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)So ol' Sanders could STILL be making up stories, but Jonathan Capehart remains a credible journalist. That's the final decision, obviously.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)This "well, whom do we believe" stuff is, in effect, calling a respected professional photographer incompetent. I know whom I believe.
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)One might, given the evidence presented in this thread, have to come to the conclusion that the denials or "we may never know's" are a homage to partisanship of the most corrupted form.
Jim Rob must be laughing.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Weak. And disgraceful.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)has been made available in this thread that absolutely proves it was Bernie in the photo.
You said you like to leave threads like this open so people can hash it out and research it.
Well the research is in and you don't have a leg to stand on.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2016, 09:52 PM - Edit history (2)
You've seen plenty of proof in this thread including the other pictures. There is no reason at this point to say it's not him. And I believe you know this. The only reason to claim it might not be is to call into question his participation in the civil rights movement which. You're better than this.
Editing to update based on Skinner's new thread. Thank you. Appreciate you clarifying and updating. I know it might not have seemed like a big deal, but this was being used to imply Bernie was exaggerating his participation and it was (is?) turning into a rather big deal.
Again, thank you.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Today, he's losing that benefit rapidly.
LiberalArkie
(19,915 posts)On Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Intellectually dishonest of you to stick with that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1224158
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Rude personal attack. Over the top and inappropriate.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 13, 2016, 08:24 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Am I wrong to predict a unanimous verdict?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Where's the "Rude personal attack. Over the top and inappropriate." parts? The poster is calling into question the other poster's opinions and motives. I would think that the other poster is capable of defending his opinions and motives.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I rolled my eyes so hard they are still spinning.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To address authenticity of the person's remark, this was said in the most appropriate way. There is nothing that rises to a rude personal attack AT ALL. For crying out loud, what a waste of an alert!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... fer crin out loud!
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)So any thing to win i guess?
lasttrip
(1,013 posts)Thanks SwampG8r.
Peace.
LT
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Even if that person standing up is not Sanders, one can't deny that Sanders was involved to some extent in the Civil Rights Movement. He deserves some credit, nothing like Lewis and the thousands of others who put their life on the line, but some credit.
The question for me is who can do the most for folks who have been treated shabbily for so long right now? I think that is Clinton.
I do see how the identification is important for those who had posts hidden. Frankly, about 98% of the posts hidden and alerted on around here should be rebutted, not alerted/hidden.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 12, 2016, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)
... she was doing when she was supporting Goldwater who campaigned against and voted against the Civil Rights Act then.
Bernie has NEVER "evolved" in his civil rights support. He's always been in the corner for POC! THAT is the person I would think most who would trust to do the most for folks who have been treated shabbily for so long!
I can see how many on the Clinton side might have been mislead by the orchestrated use of corporate media entities who weren't being professional journalists when they participated on this swift boat style SLANDER of Bernie Sanders and those who supported them. One would think that these journalists wouldn't have been so unprofessional, and I can't blame many here for swallowing their crap.
But now that the truth is out, I think it is time for those supporting Clinton and maybe earlier referring to the swift boat efforts to come clean and say that they didn't like being used and hope that the originator of the false story is made to answer for that act of slander and let everyone else go on and be professional in their support for Clinton in other ways instead of beating this dead horse. I won't hold it against them either, since many were believing sources that arguably should be believed if they weren't distorted by those who were misusing their journalistic ethics.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... versus Hillary Clinton's
Whether Goldwater was a Republican or Democrat and Hillary Clinton was a Republican or Democrat at that time is an issue that counteracts some of the consistency claims, but the focus of my comment here wasn't whether she was a Republican or not, but that she supported a Republican...
who was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act as a presidential candidate and voted against it in congress at the same time Bernie was an activist working for Civil Rights issues then.
It is not documented whether Warren was an activist for or against Civil Rights at this time, and not relevant to this conversation.
Hillary Clinton's history in terms of her explaining what motivated her to be a Republican then and campaign for someone AGAINST the Civil Rights Act then is certainly NOT clear from what Hillary Clinton has said in public here.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)BainsBane
(57,779 posts)I think we've all read enough on this site to recognize that.
It's sweet of you to try to interject reason into the discussion.
MelissaB
(16,595 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Surprise, surprise.
BainsBane
(57,779 posts)Where people here decided a criticism of Bernie was accurate rather than a lie?
Just one.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Changing the argument is also unsurprising.
Go bother someone else.
BainsBane
(57,779 posts)You just confirmed my point. Additionally, you responded to me, not the other way around.
randys1
(16,286 posts)bullshit about Hillary's emails and those are never hidden, but if someone suggests a picture may not be the candidate, those get hidden which is what prompted this thread by the owner of this forum.
Clearly the jury system is very badly broken, and this should illustrate that.
The main reason it is broken now is it is being used by one side to silence the other side.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and photojournalist only a Republican could dislike. One of the most important political and social justice photographers of our time, a famous and respected man. The people who generated this story did not even pick up the phone to ask him about it, and that's not journalism, it's bearing false witness. And they generated this story. Out of nothing, about nothing and hinging on the denigration of a really honorable man.
http://www.houkgallery.com/artists/danny-lyon/
randys1
(16,286 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The man who took the picture has great standing with me and other non Republicans. The folks pushing this story are trashing him and the Media Big Mouths did not bother to call him to ask about the photo before they wrote their own history of it. If you think that's all acceptable, that's helping to trash Danny. So don't play innocent. Own what you are doing. Know who you are doing it to.
Plus, I have a photo of Hillary opposing my right to marry. Wanna see?
randys1
(16,286 posts)that are NEVER hidden.
NEVER
And someone posts on this and they are hidden
R B Garr
(18,105 posts)must be taught a lesson.
It's actually kind of scary.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)criticize him all ya want but it's him in the fucking picture. This is pure birther level shit at this point.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)named Lyon, who says on his website:
https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/bernie-sanders-leads-1963-sit-in/
But he doesn't explain how he was in the photograph he took of Sanders, so his claims don't appear to make sense.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)is Bernie.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)Lyon, Wexler and whoever took this picture.
I cannot imagine being less disinterested in this, except for the hilarity which has ensued as a result of the outrage among some. Slander! Libel! Tassels!
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)The sentences don't make sense and the figures he's referring to are unclear. Is Lyons trying to confuse the issue on purpose, or is he just confused? In either case it seems clear that Lyons is not a reliable witness. And in the absence of some other debunker the question remains undebunked.
Is this a problem? By itself perhaps not, but as a synecdoche of a larger issue which has been clear to me for some time, I think it is. YMMV of course!
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)It was pointed out to me by my SO that, perhaps, he's clumsily stating that McNamara is in the photo while he (Lyons) is not, but is next to him. He also seems to think that there is something called the "noble" prize.
Like I said, I really, really don't care. I'm just loving the beet-faced chest-thumping over a mote.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)But the question is whether a rather important claim that Sanders has been making this whole campaign, or if nit comes to pick, allowing to be made on his behalf, is accurate, and it appears that it isn't. So there's that.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)ucrdem
(15,720 posts)https://dektol.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/bernie-sanders-leads-1963-sit-in/
Unless he was using a selfie stick his statements don't add up.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Whether intentionally or not, is not my decision to make.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Yes, it's technically possible, though unlikely, using a self-timer and tripod, but he hasn't explained that or given any indication that he's even aware that his claims don't make sense.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Seems to me, he's the one behind the camera. And if you look very carefully, you'll see that some people "in the picture" are closer to the photographer than others are.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)But he says he is, in those words. So he's either mistaken, misremembering, or just plain wrong. And no I don't see a selfie as a viable explanation.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Seriously, it's not that hard to understand.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(27,494 posts)thats how I read it.
What I want yo know is it THAT Bob McNamara ? Couldn't be. Timing isn't right but I think he was a UofC guy no?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)You'll get nowhere.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)Clearly something is amiss in the statement: either Wexler took the picture or Lyon is wrong about who's in it.
re that McNamara: not unless the president of Ford had a secret life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,494 posts)He was Sec Def at this time. Through Kennedy and Johnson.
One of my all time favorite documentaries is The Fog of War.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)they have shutter cables and they can be set to go off on delay.
I don't know who Lyons is in the photo, so I don't know if he is close enough to the camera to use a shutter cable. But he may have set the camera to go off automatically so he could get in the shot.
Petrushka
(3,709 posts). . . or, maybe --->
Bob McNamara---a close friend and CORE activist---is in the very corner, next to me, in the picture.
. . . or
--->
Bob McNamara (a close friend and CORE activist) is in the very corner, next to me, in the picture.
In any case: The photographer does NOT say he is IN the picture!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Decades ago, an event that he participated in, someone else there that looks like him, people not sure which it was in the photo......What does it matter?
Now if Bernie had claimed to be under sniper fire in some foreign country, and there was dispute over whether that occurred or not...Maybe it might be of minor interest.
It might also might matter if Bernie had been a soldier in combat and was a verified hero, but some angry old conservative shipmates were put up to smearing his heroism. And just injecting the innuendo into the public dialogue, so the truth doesn't matter...yeah that would have to be debunked as Swift-boating.
thesquanderer
(13,105 posts)It was her Secret Service double, Val.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Professional standards include accurate of attributions. You know, "facts". So yeah, it matters. It also matters because people are getting posts hidden for posting legitimate questions about the accuracy of the attribution.
I don't personally care one way or another, but the hides are problematic.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Let's say, for the sake of argument, the photo isn't Sanders, but this other guy.
There isn't a debate about whether or not sanders was there. It is generally acknowledged he was.
So what's the difference? Worst it is is a decades old oops only of interest to an archivist.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)I don't make the rules. But it is a profession and accuracy is part of the code of ethics. And the hides. That is a BIG deal here.
And clearly some people here care A GREAT DEAL whether it was Sanders in the photo or not, since they are willing to hide a legit question bolstered by a legit news source. And people outside of this site care enough to write and article about it in a major newspaper.
I am not one of those people who care, so I will not debate the other questions you bring up. But you can quit downplaying the importance. It is clearly important to many.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Guilty of journalism in the first degree. (I spout off here on DU, but I am scrupulously objective in my work.)
In this case it is not a matter of journalistic accuracy, beyond what would have merited a correction in a newspaper in the next issue.
This is more like swiftboating, which is why people are upset. Put a little meme out there (regardless of whether there is truth to it ot not) to imbed doubts about a candidate for no reason.
There is no question Sanders was doing what he said he was doing at the place he said. Whether the photographer mislabeled two people who look alike is a technicality that means nothing. (And the photographer insists he got it right.)
But it imbeds the idea that maybe Bernie wasn't there, and that he is a fraud. That is inexcusable.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)You are not addressing the hides at all. Those are STILL wrong, and the only reason I am even marginally interested in this topic.
But if you are going to claim swiftboating, then I WILL need to see a link.
What legit news source (or any source) has claimed that he was not involved, in some marginal way, with civil rights activism while he was in college? Link, please.
And second, Bernie Sanders involvement with civil rights is NOT comparable to what Kerry did in Vietnam.
And third, are you accusing the Clinton campaign of swiftboating? Because that is also offensive. You can post anything you want about her on this site right now and get away with it, but if you want my respect, then you damn well better have some proof of that too. Because that is a big, nasty, hateful thing to say if you were actually paying attention when it happened FOR REAL.
Believe me, if this story was anything at all, I would be interested. But so far, I can't even be bothered to read the articles, because it is just bullshit campaign drama. EVERYONE knows Sanders went to a few civil rights meetings and protests. Most of us also know that he has been way overselling the extent of his involvement. And that is what this kerfuffle is over. Just campaign BS on both sides. They are pushing back and forth, trying to control the narrative. Politics as usual.
People need to grow some skin if they want to hang on this site, I swear.....
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm too busy to argue about nothing. have a nice evening.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Those are a somethingburger... But otherwise, yeah. I'm tired too.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Sorry, said I was tired, right. 'night.....
femmedem
(8,566 posts)You give me faith in journalism. At least some journalism.
TubbersUK
(1,517 posts)We have :
(1) A group of of 6 photographs which is internally consistent and which the photographer says are of Bernie Sanders.
(2) A good comparison between young Bernie and old Bernie here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511212868
(3) supporting evidence in the form of contemporaneous reports which discuss Bernie's presence at the event
(4) Bernie has said that it probably is him
(5) The evidence of our own eyeballs
ETA (6) An observation from the photographer that the pics were originally labelled as Bernie and changed at a later date.
Plus, as I understand it, the second group of photags was discovered relatively recently. In which case, Bruce's friends and family may have been asked to judge the matter based on only the first batch.
The reporter should, at least, go back and confirm with his original sources and actually consult the photographer. He also needs to consider whether the content and tone of his article is appropriate given what he now knows.
berningman
(144 posts)this disgusting smear keeps lurching along. I guess thats one way to keep HRC lies from being hidden.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Swiftboating is ugly politics. It's even less pretty when supported by an admin here. If you want, you can reclaim admin jurisdiction. Until you do, I'll vote to hide these smear campaigns.
Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #189)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If impugning someone's civil rights record isn't worthy of a hide then nothing is.
They've been making these claims for months and getting away with it. Now suddenly there's concern?
I won't be intimidated.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Bernie look-alike in boots stays seated in both, then Bernie seated next to him and then standing speaking before the group -- he is even holding a book in both shots:
Response to Skinner (Original post)
Post removed
delrem
(9,688 posts)Slander, to use the photographer's words.
Par for the course...
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)His site just got some money.
Now be sure to give me a valentine for that.
I agree my friend.........very low and a lie.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)I've been here a long time. And I have never known the Admins to go totally whacko about a candidate in a primary before. 2008 was nothing like this. There are a lot of things I have enjoyed about DU over the years, but this sort of crap is making me reconsider just how much time I should spend here.
To go along with a swiftboat attack on a Democratic Candidate, let alone one for President, is shocking and disturbing.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)It was an honorable place and fair by its owners
but this one should question why the site is failing.
MelissaB
(16,595 posts)This is sickening.
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You keep referring to him as 'the photographer' as if he was someone's uncle hanging around with an Instamatic and some flashcubes to take snaps of the kid's protest. This is a hugely esteemed and highly curated artist. These are not negatives from someone's sox drawer.
I don't think any of the 'journalists' cranking this lever even knew who he is or bothered to either find out or to contact him. I think the 'journalists' assumed the photos were taken by some crazed drugged out bystander and not by a very well established artist who is valued for photography of this very nature and subject matter. But the 'journalists' made a raft of assumptions and then wrote their own narrative about it, never thinking that a Guggenheim recipient would be calling them out on their misrepresentation of his work.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
Bad Dog
(2,044 posts)
Fronkonsteen
(75 posts)from the pants-less guy in the park who heard it from a squirrel who was told by a very reliable half-eaten Snickers bar that Sanders and Rappaport would swap clothes regularly throughout the day, so the man standing in the photo may very well be Rappaport. To dismiss this as hearsay would not be fair to the half-eaten Snickers bar, who, according to the squirrel, is very reliable.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)I did not have oral relations with that Snickers bar.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)In other words, you started a thread that generated several thoughtful replies that deserve a response.
Imo, it's incumbent on you to at least offer a speedy acknowledgement.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MelissaB
(16,595 posts)anything to try to win an election. I hope this blows up in their face big time.
TubbersUK
(1,517 posts)Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)
P.S. I just had to self-delete a post for the first time in a long while yesterday... No shame in admitting when you're wrong.
Response to Flying Squirrel (Reply #261)
Skinner This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Flying Squirrel (Reply #261)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to seaotter (Reply #288)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)As far as I can tell it looks like him.
And in case I haven't made it clear, there is absolutely no doubt that Bernie Sanders was active in the civil rights movement.
My concern is that, if we have a piece of information that is in dispute, should we be deliberately censoring people who have a different opinion (if that opinion is shared in a civil manner)? That makes me uncomfortable.
Response to Skinner (Reply #292)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Honestly, the question belongs in Creative Speculation.
Vinca
(54,321 posts)A comparison of Bernie both standing and sitting is proof right down to the tassels on the shoes and boatneck collar on the sweater that he is the speaker. I don't know why this is an issue to begin with since the photographer who took the picture is alive and has identified the photo.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Washington Post and MSNBC are supposedly credible sources but most of us know they can't be trusted sometimes. We have to judge with our own eyes.
Just because the MSM decides to do a smear job against a candidate (like Sanders), that doesn't mean the smear job fits within DU's community standards.
Jonathan Capehart decided to lie about this, and when we told him about it on twitter, he doubled down and made several unprofessional tweets mocking us. Then he went on MSNBC television and repeated the lies.
Nobody should be surprised if juries are hiding that trash when it gets repeated here.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The people who generated this bullshit story did not do their jobs, they did not call the photographer, in this case a famous and highly respected photographer particularly known for political and social justice work, to ask him about the photo. This should have been the first thing they did. His word about his photo should be considered a fact which would have to be disproved by anyone making that allegation, not as his opinion which is equal to that of any pundit who wants to have something to say on TV. It is despicable behavior long before it came to DU. All this time, no one in the media looked into the history of the photograph in any way. They did not do even the slightest bit of research.
Danny Lyon has done extraordinary work. The first photojournalist to report on US prisons in depth, for example. The fact is that he is who people here should be defending and siding with, not Big Media Mouths. For fuck's sake.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)"You take your chances."
Why is that attitude changing all of a sudden?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)dishonest posts hidden and it's leaving a mark?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)You are saying we shame liars...............because you think you are civil on this swiftboat attack that is a lie proven again and again in this thread you created?
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,494 posts)YOU aren't. But some of the usual suspects are.
Why is this now an admin level issue that some of the biggest game players on this site stuck their nose in the bee hive and got stung?
I've read just about everything you've ever written on du3 about juries, and hosting and rules.
We've all heard "you take your chances" a hundred times.
And more importantly, in this case IMO, you have said on several occasions, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'don't be surprised if the jury takes your previous reputation in to account'
Come on. The usual suspects aren't engaging in innocent debate over an innocent question over a photograph. This is just another piece of a weeks long smear of Sanders' civil rights record. It's been going on since day one. Congressman Lewis just propelled the nontraversy in to hyper drive.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)...is because I care about this website, and placed my trust in all of you to run it. I did so because I believed that you all knew much better than I did how you would want this website to be run.
And I truly believe that my trust in you has not been misplaced. People would get their posts hidden and they wouldn't like it, but in EVERY CASE when people came to complain about their hidden post there would be something legitimate that earned the hide. A rude comment about large groups of people. A veiled insult. A shitty rightwing source. You name it -- there was something. If you want to do something antisocial, or even if you do a terrible job of expressing yourself and make people think you said something awful that you didn't mean, you take your chances.
When primary season started, I knew it would put strain on the system. People told me I was nuts. But I believed that every DUer -- regardless of what candidate they supported -- understood implicitly this idea that when they sat on juries and judged their fellow DU members, that the ideal they were striving for was to judge the manner in which the viewpoint was shared. Not the viewpoint itself -- provided it was in the broad range of acceptable DU viewpoints.
In a primary season context, I believe that everyone here understands that the campaigns involved are going to be making accusations against each other. I also believe that everyone here understands that these issues are going to be discussed and dissected in the mainstream media and on Democratic Underground. Back when I actually decided what was permitted to be said here, my belief was that if it was being said by the media or by campaigns or by surrogates out there in the real world, then I should expect and allow people to say it here. People complained that I allowed it to go on, but I believed deep down that everyone here understood the line that was being drawn.
I never believed that people would get their posts hidden simply for sharing an article from a mainstream news source. I put my trust in the members of this website. I did not believe anyone would ever get their post hidden simply for sharing an article from a mainstream news source, or reporting what was said on MSNBC.
I know it's easy to chalk this up as Skinner being that biased Hillary supporter. But let's be honest here: I am the least effective biased person who has ever run a discussion forum. I've stacked the system so all the decisions about civility enforcement are made by groups of people who overwhelmingly support a different candidate than I do. Supporters of my candidate only make up about 10% of the people here. I handed the keys over to a bunch of people who I knew would enforce very different standards than I would, but I get to be called biased anyway. I don't think anyone here really understands or appreciates what that is like. I don't think anyone here -- if they were in my shoes -- would have ever chosen to voluntarily give up almost all of that power.
But I still have opinions about this stuff. Let's be clear what has happened here: I have not overturned anyone's hidden post. I have not removed any of the jurors from jury service. I asked for someone to show me the evidence that this had actually been debunked. And while the evidence it compelling this is not a slam dunk. It's just not. Those of us who were not there have to rely on our own two eyes and the differing recollections of people who were there.
I know that the attitude is attack attack attack. Skinner has thrown down the gauntlet and shown once and for all that nothing will stop him from forcing everyone to bow down to Hillary Clinton! But really the response here is totally over-the-top.
I just want people to stop and think for a moment. Is this how you think DU ought to be run? Because let's face it: You are the people running it. If Jonathan Capehart and the University of Chicago and Time Magazine are reporting something, should supporters of other candidates be permitted to share that point of view here? Can we handle it or not?
I believe we can handle it. I still trust the members of this site to run this site. But I really think we do ourselves a disservice if we don't stop and think about what exactly we are doing, and whether it's really what we want.
Response to Skinner (Reply #351)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I think you have pretty overwhelming evidence, specifically contemporaneous photographic evidence labeled by the photographer himself, AT that point in time, from the time in question, being put up against the 'memories' of people now about a time a half century in the past. Eyewitnesses are pretty much the least reliable possible type of evidence even when an event JUST took place, and we know that people build false memories, there are all sorts of scientific studies that show it.
I think it's pretty weak tea to simply claim 'there are two sides to the story'. It's Fox 'Fair and Balanced' to say the two are both likely or even possible.
Capeheart wasn't there, he didn't take pictures at the time. Time Magazine wasn't taking pictures and labeling them at the time. U Chicago wasn't taking pictures at the time. The actual photographer, who WAS there, who DID take the photos, and who labeled them at the time has stated, yes, those are my pictures, yes, that's Bernie Sanders, and someone has altered the labels on other photos out of my control.
That's pretty ironclad evidence.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Even if it actually WAS Rappaport, there is absolutely no reason to even bring it up except as part of the overall campaign to try and discredit Sanders' Civil Rights cred. Should it matter if in any given picture, Bernie was the one speaking or one listening at a given moment in time? No. But we've seen a concerted effort over the last few days to throw shade at Sanders, to make people think he's lying about his past work in civil rights, as part of the overall Clinton effort to keep a wedge in place between Sanders and African Americans and maintain her 'firewall'. So yeah, the 'Rappaport' thing, as stupid as it is, is still part of a concerted smear campaign.
So are you comfortable with people using YOUR site to foster such a smear campaign?
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And I'd have to see how it was presented. Obviously I'm not going to hide a comment with the picture saying something like 'Here is a copy of the picture that Jonathan Capeheart is using to try and proclaim that Bernie Sanders has no civil rights cred'.
But anyone pushing the Bernie Sanders is lying about his Civil Rights cred? Yes, I would vote to hide that as a baseless smear and a lie.
Why do you ask, are you planning to revoke my right to sit on juries?
(ETA: And, btw, iirc, the last post I voted to hide was an attack on Clinton supporters.)
Skinner
(63,645 posts)(copy of picture)
Apparently University of Chicago no longer claims Sanders is in the picture
Would you vote to hide that if it was an OP?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)to simply proclaim us all unreasonable, that's your business.
As I've stated, I consider it simply part of a concerted swiftboating campaign. There is no 'innocent' way to take part in such. People are posting things like that to try and help further the smear. It's not just 'Oh, I am just reporting what other people have said.' It's exactly the same tactic Fox News and their associates have used for years, everybody repeating what each other said until it simply 'becomes conventional wisdom'. Person A reports, then person B and C report that person A reported it, then Person D reports that people A, B, and C are all reporting it, and before long you've built a critical mass that casts doubts on what was a simple truth.
So Matthews, Capeheart, and various others are all building that critical mass of misinformation, and soon it'll be added that it's also been 'reported' on various blogs, including this one.
You might go take a look at nadinbrzinski's (spelling?) OP on it as well, from inside the photog business.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)I genuinely want to know. Would you vote to hide that?
delrem
(9,688 posts)But so what? I wouldn't hide most of the stuff that's hidden on DU.
I think people on all sides of all issues and supporters of all candidates misuse the jury system. Nevertheless, I do think it's a damn good system.
What you are missing here - or evading, I don't know if you're just unable to see it - is that this is a classic exercise in swiftboating, right up there in similitude with the swiftboating of Kerry. To be sure, the swiftboating of Kerry was much more serious, being used by the Republicans in a GE to win, reelecting a war mongering chickenhawk. Just remembering it makes my blood boil! BOIL, Skinner. I so hate it, I so hate that kind of politics and hate it hate it hate it when it wins. Yet that's exactly what's happening here with Capehart, Matthews, and the swiftboating DU trolls who're pushing the meme that Bernie Sanders is a fake. A liar about his commitment to social justice.
I never saw the post you refer to. But given this context I can understand a hide like that, esp. if the context were a gloating poster pushing the swiftboating ratfucking meme.
The ratfucking on this issue is intolerable. This has been going on for 8 months now. It's just now going into overdrive, what with Hillary Clinton's recent 3 page memo and the flood of money.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Quite probably yes, just like I would hide any comment oh so innocently reporting on Chris Matthews reporting on some new allegation about Clinton and the Benghazi smear campaign or the alleged Vince Foster murder. Because both are building upon lies to hide real past, historical truth and paint the candidates as something they aren't.
There are a LOT of things I dislike about Clinton, but she is not out there having people murdered to cover up her paranoid behaviours, or deliberately allowing our State Department personnel to be killed because she won't bother to call for help. So people who propagate such lies, even by 'reporting what others have said' deserve to be hidden. Ditto people helping swiftboat Bernie with this set of untruths. If Lewis himself came on site and posted what he said the other day, I'd hide THAT too.
delrem
(9,688 posts)We can explain it very simply by "That's what they are, so that's the best they've got. They cannot win through honest one-on-one debate on the issues so they are forced to do everything in their power to tear their opponents down to their level."
But nobody expects Dems to swiftboat and ratfuck Dems.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)There's a contingent (10%?) that want to smear a politician that has spent his life trying to make things better, and now that their smear of the day is backfiring we have to be concerned for them.
The jury system works.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)You have slightly too much faith in the honesty and integrity of jurors. There's always going to be the odd jury that is stacked in favor of identity politics. Some people will hide someone just because they don't like them.
SalviaBlue
(3,110 posts)My right-wing friends and relatives always use the "well that's your opinion" line to refute the facts I present to them.
Once the facts are known, and they are in this case, opinions should cease.
And, reporters should get their facts straight before they make accusations, otherwise it looks like a smear.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And, oh yeah, I seem to remember supporters of a Democratic candidate playing with that turd ball in 2008.
Have you looked at the other pictures from the contact sheet in the replies you are studiously not answering?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)As long as we are civil, we can post anything we like because we are "in dispute" about it's legitimacy? People who believe in the flying spaghetti monster are in dispute about it's legitimacy.
I don't believe in all the hides. Never have liked it. I think this place is like kindergarten sometimes. But when something is obviously proven wrong and the best you can say is "I guess we just will never know for sure"...I don't buy that. Especially coming from an admin.
I'm not asking anyone to hide this thread.
I'm asking you to acknowledge that the photo was of Bernie, and it was wrong for the journalist to go on Chris Matthews and wherever else he went and spread this smear...and then to let people continue to spread it here, and not stand up and say you/they were wrong.
Sorry...I don't think that is ethical.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)who have been civil yet voiced a different opinion?
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)The Gay Purge post-Obama's election. It was an extremely ugly episode, probably the ugliest on DU.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)I remember that, and other more recent hits.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)I'm straight, but it killed me to see my LGBT brothers and sisters be treated like garbage and banned because they disagreed w/ how they were treated here. The admins literally had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even admitting it was a problem, let alone acting on it.
Never looked at this place the same way again.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Some were just excessive comments, probably in the heat of the moment, but yet others seem to be unnessesarry: payback or testing the waters for another purge.
Sad.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2016, 03:11 AM - Edit history (1)
Why are we even talking about it? Why is it an "issue", when frankly there aren't air quotes big enough to put around that word?
We all know that Bernie Sanders was active in progressive causes going back to the early 60s. It's simple, indisputable fact.
The problem here is that the Clinton campaign, and Clinton supporters, have approached the Sanders phenomenon as a problem to be "solved", a vile dragon to be slain. If only there were just a pair of stained underwear, a damning newspaper essay, a debunked photo that would just get him out of the way already and allow the inevitability train to proceed unimpeded, as God so surely had intended from the start.
And that RIGHT FUCKING THERE is one of the big problems we have with her deal; it's politics as rugby game, as points on the board scoring. There is zero acknowledgment of what underlying issues might actually be driving people to seek out the message of a Bernie Sanders, this cycle, and ask what do we do about it, what are we doing wrong.
We get thread after thread about "berniebros" and implications that supporters wear this and think that and said the other and fifty trillion other things which have jack diddly shit to do with the actual issues which are facing the actual electorate.
So here, lets just imply that he lied about being a civil rights activist- he didn't- because we think that will solidify our support with a important demographic in an upcoming primary.
You're a smart guy- I think you know why juries are pissed off about this bullshit.
MerryBlooms
(12,400 posts)Perfectly stated!!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Perfectly said
R B Garr
(18,105 posts)the picture with Sanders name, when it's not Sanders. Edit: picture has the imprimatur of the Bernie Sanders for President campaign.
The Sanders campaign failed to correct the picture ID until they were forced to. Thats why it's being discussed now, although this was also brought up months ago.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Do you dispute that he was active in the progressive movement and civil rights back then? He was. So who fucking cares if it's actually him in the photo? What flippin' difference does it make?
The answer is "none".
R B Garr
(18,105 posts)complicit with it being used with his official campaign imprimitur when it is in question. Enough people have come forward saying it's not him. These are Univ. alums who were there at the time saying it wasn't him.
If it wasn't being circulated with his official Bernie Sanders for President jargon, then maybe you have a point. Even Capehart was saying this wasn't about his civil rights work. But if it's not him, he shouldnt be falsely benefitting.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Here is a whole long list of actual fucking issues that matter to actual fucking citizens in two thousand and actual fucking sixteen, that the HRC campaign doesn't want to talk about. Or is desperate to change the subject from.
"Hey I smoke medical marijuana and I don't want a SWAT team kicking down my door and dragging me off to prison" "well, as you know, we have a terrible heroin problem in this country"
R B Garr
(18,105 posts)started because the Bernie crowd got upset that a civil rights leader endorsed Clinton yesterday.
So much for "issues."
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And its part of a long chain of dissembling and fundamentally meaningless diversions.
Because obviously, Hillary cannot run on the issues.
R B Garr
(18,105 posts)endorsement yesterday. Quite a conspiracy to say that John Lewis is now in on it. The conspiracies about everything under the sun are the diversions. Every candidate is questioned about their past.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)I'm reading your posts from yesterday, and, I think I see a pattern here ...
The pattern goes like this: you swear it isn't Bernie, but it's proven it is in fact Bernie ...
So, when I look for facts from someone ... Shall I give you a call?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Awesome post, Warren.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Danny Lyon is one of the most important American photographers of the last half century to renew the documentary tradition's concern with social justice. He was shaped by his experience covering the unrest of the 1960s as staff photographer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. This led to his first publication, The Movement (1964), and since then he has produced numerous books, including Conversations with the Dead (1971), the first book on America's prison system by a photojournalist. He has also had a significant career as a filmmaker, his work including Little Boy (1977), Los Niños Abandonados (1975), and Social Sciences 127 (1969).
http://www.houkgallery.com/artists/danny-lyon/
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)The fact that HIS work and HIS own memory and integrity is now called into question is just appalling. Clearly people here aren't aware of his historical body of work, but are now experts of his subject matter.
I'm dear friends with a few photographers and they are very careful about cataloging and documenting their work - it's not only a point of artistic pride, but a practical necessity.
I trust this iconic photographer and his careful records over the bombastic screaming of David Brock's smear machine any day.
betsuni
(29,276 posts)
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)the reverse is never true...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Makes one wonder why so many facies are taken. No one's gonna believe them or you anyway.
Mike Nelson
(10,943 posts)When I got to the photo posted by "Hell Hath No Fury" (#201, I think)...you can see them in the SAME PHOTO! But, anyway, both were there and the ad didn't specifically say Bernie was the one standing up... If I were there and saw some photos where guys wore the same style glasses and clothing, I would be mixed up, too.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Does team H have their umbrellas ready?
TBF
(37,130 posts)Personally what concerns me is what Bernie has been doing the past 2-3 decades in Congress. He has consistently been working for the least advantaged as long as I can remember and that is what informs my opinion and motivates me to join with others on Sunday, Valentine's Day (I am older - married w/kids) to see what I can do to help out the guy. We are holding organizing meeting in the suburbs south of Houston in preparation for Super Tuesday on March 1. If anyone wants details where we're meeting just check Bernie's website or PM me. If this is anything like the meeting for Obama we'll be divvying up phone lists, walking routes etc. I don't have a lot of time for this but I am doing it for Bernie. I have had enough of this decent man being attacked.
Gore1FL
(22,980 posts)Find another reason to justify your support of Hillary.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Over the last two decades, Mr. Lyon, 71, has also found considerable success in museums and galleries. An unusual show this month at Manhattan’s Edwynn Houk Gallery includes only 13 works from his 50-year career. But they are mural-sized gelatin silver prints, which provide a radically different experience of his images than seeing them in books. There are also color prints of montages.
He is still making books, photographs and even films. He documented the Occupy movement around the country and is working on a film about his former SNCC colleague, John Lewis, who is now a congressman.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/agitating-for-justice-and-freedom-with-a-camera/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)yeah...that's about an even argument
Starry Messenger
(32,382 posts)SalviaBlue
(3,110 posts)I'm replying to make the thread longer... 'cuz its not long enough yet.
greatauntoftriplets
(179,330 posts)
Milestone
(37 posts)and I'm using my very first post (after a dozen years of lurking) to do it.
MelissaB
(16,595 posts) SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)Don't care who the picture is of just here for the Hey ya'll
iwillalwayswonderwhy
(2,729 posts)Dear skinner, if you had posted this before the latest fundraiser, I could have pulled and cancelled my yearly donation. You should not have posted this.
Response to iwillalwayswonderwhy (Reply #345)
Post removed
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)It has become a ridiculous popularity contest anyway. Give Bernie a valentine present instead.
jillan
(39,451 posts)I'm sure he would love to hear from you.
He is working on a project for John Lewis (interesting - huh?) but I bet he wouldn't mind being interrupted by your conspiracy theories.
https://dektol.wordpress.com/
one_voice
(20,043 posts)theories floating around. UChicago says it's one person, the photog says it's another. I don't know who it is or isn't.
My thing is bad hides. If there's isn't 100% certainty then no one should be getting their threads/comments hidden, because of something a **juror** believes. That's not fair.
It's a bad hide imo. There's not irrefutable proof. If you can't step back and be objective then excuse yourself from the jury. Just my .02
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)for threads that piss me off to an unreasonable extent. They just magically disappear after that. And Ignore for people who consistently post threads that make me use the little trashcan thingy. But hiding a thread for posting legit questions from a reputable source is bad.
The photo was of *someone* protesting injustice. I suggest we ALL protest this injustice of the bad hide by re-posting the same article AT THE SAME time. That would be EPIC
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Response to Skinner (Original post)
Post removed
MelissaB
(16,595 posts)ALL the toppings...
MelissaB
(16,595 posts)I'm not the one who alerted on that post, but I hope you step back for a few minutes so that you don't get that pizza with all of the toppings.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)some people...
Response to Skinner (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
alittlelark
(19,143 posts)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)The man, Daniel Lyons that TOOK the picture, or assorted Fox News personalities and political hacks?
There are about 18 million threads on the internet stating that this is Bernie Sanders.
If you are clinging to the belief that it is not Bernie Sanders and he has some pernicious, devious reason to pretend to be a civil rights activist, which he *was*, I'd like to hear exactly what your theory is.
Please indulge the board with why the person that took the photos of Bernie at the CORE meeting says it is indeed, Bernie, offers up several more pictures, but for some reason, folks like yourself seem dubious that Bernie Sanders can be that damn honest for that damn long, and with that much damn evidence to back it up.
I guess being honest is a conspiracy these days.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)I'd like to hear an answer, too.
I was a paying member for a number of years here but stopped when the Gay Purge happened.
I thought about about letting bygones be bygones this year. But after this? No chance.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Period.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)But I am also aware that some people who knew Bernie and this Rappaport person at the time claim that it is Rappaport. I don't see why my opinion would be more valid than theirs.
And the thought of hiding that alternate belief of it is posted here concerns me.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)He has more pictures plus the negatives proving it's him. He marked on those at the time that it was him.
Yet, it gets a "probably" from you?
Really?
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Exactly.
I could not care less who was in that photo. But let others have a legitimate discussion about the facts if they are interested.
I don't see how the identity of the person in the photo hurts or helps one side or the other in the first place. Tactically, it would have been smarter to just let the story die. But now any threads on this topic will be kicked for all eternity.....
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"It's Bernie Sanders . . . as far as I know."
I would think that the person that took the photograph has a more valid opinion than yours, mine and certainly anybody in the Clinton camp.
Do you dispute that Daniel Lyons took the picture?
Do you dispute that he is probably the best person to ask with regard to who he took a picture of?
Because otherwise this is a smear.
You have enough clout, I would think, since your wife is a part of Hillary Clinton's campaign, that you could get an answer from Daniel Lyons.
That would be an excellent place to start.
TubbersUK
(1,517 posts)in the form of the additional photos which recently came to light, plus the photographers input.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)As I said, I think it's probably him. But I'm not really good at certainty when there are still loose ends that haven't been addressed.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)Danny Lyon says it's Bernie. He took the photos.
Is he a liar or not?
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)Any more loose ends you want tied up until you know for certain?
Skinner
(63,645 posts)...some people who knew both Bernie and Rappaport seem to think this is Rappaport. That would eliminate any possible doubt.
Capehart apparently spoke with Rappaport's ex-wife, so hopefully that will clear it up.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
DoBotherMe
(2,350 posts)And I hope it's not my candidate's campaign
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)Say goodbye to the millennial vote forever for the Democratic Party and hello to a new 3rd party. It's just that simple.
People are tired of this crap.
Dustlawyer
(10,540 posts)Look at the timing, right before SC Primary. John Lewis's comments, changing the captions on the pictures at the University of Chicago, Capehart's piece...
Bernie was arrested for being a student leader of the protest! This is a Rovian tactic by a campaign that will do anything to win. Like Bernie said, Wall Street isn't giving all of that money for nothing!
Bernie is fighting to end this practice and the control over government it enables. Now he has to fight the media and the biased Democratic Party too! I don't think this is what you had in mind when you started to support Hillary. Bernie is truly fighting to restore Representative Democracy, Hillary is fighting on behalf of corporate America so they can retain control over government and the MSM propaganda machine. She has proven that her campaign is willing to lie and manipulate voters to win, not what you would want in a POTUS.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)this concern doesn't make sense at all, this seems, at least from the evidence, to be as settled as President Obama's birth location, do you think we shouldn't hide birther nonsense about the President?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)to smear someone...not so much.
Warning: Video below contains graphic images depicting the effect of war on human beings.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)From your link:
Bernie Sanders (standing, right), member of the Committee on Racial Equality’s steering committee, stands next to University of Chicago President George Beadle, who addresses a CORE meeting on housing sit-ins. (Danny Lyon/Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library)
and
A few things stand out. The shirt he is wearing, the collar, watch (and, as an aside, bother were taken indoors).
The linked wapo article states: "Another old picture that appears in campaign literature and video of student-activist Sanders with the university president is not in question. That most definitely is him. " (referring to the first photo).
Add in this from elsewhere on the thread:
This is Bruce:
Update: On Feb. 11, 2016, Danny Lyon, the photographer who took the pictures of the sit-in posted photographs of Sanders at the same event. The rediscovered photos show Sanders seated and facing the camera, wearing a rough, dark sweater and a white shirt, similar to the activist in the disputed photo. Lyon said all the photos are in the same series, leading him to conclude that Sanders is the man in question.
“Because of the outtakes, the pictures taken before the next picture, I deduced that it was him,” Lyon said. “Did these guys switch sweaters or something? It’s Bernie.” Lyon does not remember taking the photo. To see the other photos, click here.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)As far as I know the Time update did not appear when I read the article earlier today. At the top of the article it says it was updated this evening, but the update below is dated yesterday.
FWIW, the fact that Time has not retracted the article gives me pause.
But I am still not comfortable with the idea of people getting their posts hidden for posting this, particularly when the story was relatively new.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)And we've been told it's perfectly fair and fine. Get used to it.
It's really nice of you to have so much concern for the jury hides in question, but it is the system you set up, and you know what they say about what's good for the goose.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)The jury system is often abused. I'm on juries frequently, sometimes once a day and occasionally twice, and 90% of the alerts are obviously pure vindictiveness against the person and not the post.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Time has updated. The photographer has stated its slander against Bernie, and Bernie's campaign has stated it's him.
Why not update your thread with realities information and stop stirring the pot in this issue.
I think the real question we should be asking is why historical archives data was changed, and why journalists (some with direct ties to the Clinton campaign) went out promoting a story without even consulting the photographer who took the pictures. All pretty shady. Look at how many people took the bait due to deception and lack of vetting.
I've been a DUer for years. I don't post all that much, but I pop in and read. I've respected you for being above the fray, and was really surprised to see you lower yourself yesterday. Damn.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)If he now knows the truth, nearly as well as anything in the past can be known, why not edit his post? A simple thank you for having his concerns addressed would be nice. Another journal entry that addresses what facts have come to his attention from this thread might be even better. I just checked, and I don't see one.
It's because people post flame bait and smears disguised as legitimate questions, and then never address the thoughtful responses that generates, that threads get alerted on. Making equivalent having an honest question with threads that are seen as having dishonest motives is part of why there's disagreement in this thread with the OP.
There are lots of legitimate doubts in people's minds about prominent people.
Can you imagine this place if everything negative that's been posited about a candidate, or who they were connected to, was framed as a question, and asked for it to be refuted? I know it seems like General Discussion: Primaries is already a bit like that, but it actually is nothing like what it can devolve into if we let threads like the ones attempting to swiftboat Senator Sanders stand.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Assuming, of course, the goal here is truth rather than a clever way to highlight and continue the smear.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts) cui bono
(19,926 posts)
.
pacalo
(24,857 posts)It looks just like Bernie: His profile, same posture, same shoulders & hand gesturing.
This is going to be a petty campaign season if this nonsense is a sign of things to come.
zigby
(125 posts)I'm pretty new but I've seen a lot of vicious, rabid activity. Strange that a couple hidden posts is what gets your hackles up, rather than trying to lead an example of unity here. Not a good look.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That's not lost on all the old timers either.
I'm not new here and I can tell you the favorability shown towards Hillary supporters here is obvious. They are allowed to have obvious socks and admitted trolls and post vile anti-semitic and racial OPs, but Bernie supporters get banned for a play on words and a misinterpreted OP that was in no way suggesting what the ban reason claimed.
.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Otherwise they don their big shoes and walk all over everyone.
PatrickforO
(15,521 posts)I know that it was talked about on here way back last year, with the guy in the pic identified as Rappaport. Funny how it has arisen again - probably because the mainstream media is just now noticing Bernie. My own opinion: It's kind of a tempest in a teapot.
Quixote1818
(31,158 posts)
?quality=75&strip=color&w=1100
xocet
(4,444 posts)View Committee on Racial Equality Sit-In, 1962 1
Series IV: Student Activities
Description Bernie Sanders speaks on the first day of the Committee on Racial Equality's sit-in at the office of University.
Subject Terms Beadle, George Wells, 1903-1989 | College students | College presidents | Political activists | Civil rights demonstrations
Photographer Lyon, Danny, born 1942
Photograph Date 1962-02
Physical Format Photographic prints; 16.1 x 23.4 cm
Location University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Collection Archival Photographic Files
Repository University of Chicago Library, Special Collections Research Center
Image Identifier apf4-01698
http://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf4-01698.xml
Hopefully, that is enough proof.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Skinner has gone underground. I know his point was not just whether or not this was the truth, but his title of his OP asked for proof of debunking and he's gotten it many times now and still is not answering to this.
mainer
(12,579 posts)Univ of Chicago has reversed itself and once again identifies the speaker as Sanders. These attacks on him have only brought forth his work on civil rights.
http://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf4-01698.xml
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)
Quixote1818
(31,158 posts)You are exactly right that is has shined a HUGE spotlight on Sanders Civil rights work right when people in SC are trying to make up there minds and looking at the candidates. Also, the fact that it is backfiring just makes Clinton look mean spirited and dishonest.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Oh well at least the University of Chicago has Corrected the Record.
http://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf4-01698.xml
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Will you still be "concerned" if someone reposts the original LIE and their post gets hidden?
Because right now, your post is perpetuating the lie.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)The pictures aren't in dispute anymore. The U of C confirms it's Bernie. The photographer says it's Bernie.
Yet you haven't edited your OP to show these facts.
Why not?
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)The jury system works great. It's not perfect but nothing is. Props to programmers who created the DU jury system. Never seen anything so cool before on a web forum. It really helps make this a community driven site. Love it.
And I say that as someone who has had a bunch of posts hidden, sometimes unfairly, and even got put on time outs. It's not perfect but I think this photo-gate example shows it CAN work.
The University of Chicago has now changed the caption back to "Bernie Sanders".
WE did it guys. We helped.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)I wonder who else bought into this smear, and was egged on into making a comment they might not have otherwise? Everyone who was tricked into buying it should be expressing their outrage.
Huh, sort of liked buying into the lies about WMDs and terrorists in Iraq, but that's an analogy for another day.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Anyone with financial connections to the Clinton campaign, who then perpetuates this lie, is suspected of being asked to perpetuate this lie.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)believe, Capeheart or your own lying eyes? "He who has eyes, let him see."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1223978
me b zola
(19,053 posts)enigmatic
(15,021 posts)who are perpetuate this smear.
All of them.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)Until Skinner edits his OP to include the facts that have been presented to him.
We're waiting, Skinner.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)Then lets go full truth and reconciliation and take a look at possible unfair bans. I suggest we start with NYC Skip, Jackpine Radical, and Loonix.....after all an unfair ban would be several magnitudes more serious than an unfair hide.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)Let's see you edit your OP to reflect what the facts are, Skinner.
You owe this board that.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)would be in your position. If you needed any more evidence, just look at this thread.
*smh*
tularetom
(23,664 posts)This bullshit story has been thoroughly debunked. Even the so called journalist who stirred the ugly pile of shit in the first place has abandoned the story.
senz
(11,945 posts)For a change of pace, lets have some truth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511223587
redgreenandblue
(2,128 posts)...if a segment of DU had not taken it on themselves to slander Bernie's well documented civil rights record as a campaigning tactic.
I have no idea about that picture (seeing it for the first time) and more then likely would have voted to "leave" if on a jury for a post that questions the autenticity of it, but I get why people have become thin skinned. So much bullshit has been peddled ever since people were called racist and worse for daring to express their discomfort with a Jewish man who lost family to the holocaust being called a white supremacist by a person wearing a crucifix.
SixString
(1,057 posts)
Transparency rocks.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)bottles' and now 'Bernie plays bigoted rap music'.
It takes a village. Yes it does.