Is it me or is anyone else having trouble with Terrible Truth’s conclusions?
Sifting the wheat from the chaff isn’t easy...amongst the obvious errors (like her enrollment date at the U of WA for example) - there’s SOME there there.
The images of the child do not appear to have been altered in any way either. Both images could be the same child, without any tampering required.
I think it is too much of a stretch for no more evidence than has been presented. It is interesting, but not conclusive of anything solid in my opinion.
Considering this woman looks older in 1962 than she supposedly did in 1965, in the other photo these same people posted, I have trouble with it. Why not post the entire page? In this photo, you don’t even see the woman’s face.