[XEHRpa]

Well, unless they are out and out fabricating their validating science, it's hard not to believe them. Re: the lip mole, they said it was probably dirt, and not a mole, in the original photo. Also, she had a distinctive freckle on one of her fingers which matched up perfectly before and after. Finally, unless they fabricated her dialog, she reiterated the exact corroborating circumstances of the original photo.

So, I conclude that either she is for real, or else National Geographic is more corrupt than I could imagine.

[Hank Kerchief]

So, I conclude that either she is for real, or else National Geographic is more corrupt than I could imagine.

I do not believe it is like that. I mean, I do not believe there is necessarily an intention to deceive. I have no idea how the details that convinced those who are convinced, came about, but I do know that such details can easily be created, not with the intent to deceive, but to make everything "fit" a preconceived notion.

I do not doubt that there were reasons to believe these two women were actually the one and same, but, I believe, once the conviction was accepted, those interested probably worked harder at corroborating the belief than rigorously testing it. For one thing, except for the story, there is nothing else at stake.

If they happen to be right, than I will be surprised, but not dissappointed. If they happen to be wrong, it does little harm. I just happen to believe they are wrong, but I am not convinced their motives were necessarily wrong, at least on this issue.

Hank