What YOU seem to be missing is that, technically, there are three photos:
The one taken by the prof;
The doctored version of the prof’s photo; and
A real live photo taken of Fonda and Kerry at an earlier rally.
Bricker was just making sure folks know that the third photo existed, since it wasn’t mentioned in your article. He elaborated that it’s a meaningless photo, but was setting the record straight.
You’re totally off-base on criticizing him for this.
Daniel
No, actually, it wasn’t. I’ve only seen the Kerry-Fonda photo where Kerry is sitting three rows behind Fonda, which is genuine. I’d never even heard of the doctored photo until this thread, and neither the article you linked to not your OP made it clear that you were talking about some other photo entirely. Thankfully, Bricker was here to clarify that there are, in fact, two different photos: one real, one fake. Both are equally meaningless in my (and, apparently, Bricker’s) opinion, but it was still an important and useful clarification, and one which does not warrant your hostility towards him. I’d say you owe Bricker a substantial apology.
OK. It’s taken me a while to puzzle this through. I did not understand Bricker’s meaning of “genuine.” I thought he was suggesting that Prof. Light never took a photo at all, and the photo in question was entirely cobbled together. Hence my post where I said I thought the article made it clear there was, indeed, a photo.
When LH and Miller posted, I was poised to fire off a “can’t you guys read either” post, and then I thought about it for a while, and then I figured out that what Bricker’s reference to “genuine” that an actual photo of Fonda and Kerry attending an anti-war rally did exist, to wit: the Valley Forge photo. (Miller, I had only seen the doctored photo until I just Googled the Valley Forge one.) Therefore, my post title “Kerry/Fonda photo doctored” was unclear.
So, I must conclude that I was wrong. I apologize for the unpleasant verbiage, Bricker. It was uncalled for.
I have felt that Bricker has been overly concerned with semantics in previous posts, and thus my uncalled-for overreaction. I must learn to wait a half-hour after waking up to post, particular when I am writing mean things in the Pit.
Although I have been awake for nine-plus hours, I still can’t write. Please insert “meant” between “genuine” and “that” in the second paragraph. Doh! I’m going home now. Oh shit, I am home…
What a good thing I read through the entire thread before replying!
In any event, now it seems essvee is hip to the full picture. (No pun intended). For myself, it didn’t occur to me that the existence of both pictures would not be well-known, and that assumption certainly contributed to the sitcom-like misunderstanding above. It also demonstrates the truly insidious effects that a faked photo can have; the fake can get more publicity and be seen by more people than the real. It’s scary – especially since NEITHER photo ultimately proves anything, good or bad.
Except that there are some talented Photoshoppers out there.
I once attended a lecture by the head of the John Birch Society, which means I can never run for office, even though I was only there to find out what the sorry fucker had to say and to heckle him afterward. Alas, it will probably keep me from the presidency.
Well…that and the fact that I had several extra-marital affairs long ago and used to drink like a fish, and once smoked some ganja in the Virgin Islands that made me see Jane Fonda…or maybe it was god.