I’m not sure Steve’s post needs a response, but since you asked...
As to where I’ve been, I’ve been working... and researching.
I don’t think Steve really understands the situation. I don’t think he has actually quite grasped what I’m talking about. I do think he’s a smart guy, so maybe it’s because he hasn’t read my posts closely enough.
Particularly, he needs to go back through 187 with a fine-toothed comb.
All he has done in his most recent post is to repeat his theory, which I understand quite perfectly, and which is unfortunately incorrect. Yes, that was a solid statement.
BTW, I do graphic editing professionally.
And, they weren’t careful about what images they selected from secondary documents, because they accidentally selected some typeset proportional font text and kerned font text (possibly from a magazine of that era, or a later printed document) and included it in their primary editing layer.
If it's true that some of the text consists of proportional and kerned fonts that couldn't have been created in 1960s, then this seems to throw a new wrinkle into things. I don't see how the software processes involved in scanning the image -- the ones that try to recognize text and that create the various layers -- can explain this. Maybe you've covered it already but I don't think I've seen it.