2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]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.