As usual, headline and story are wrong in their foundation.
This is not “PROOF”, but rather limited exculpatory evidence.
For example, the person who does not remember Judge Moore ever coming into restaurant cannot testify from personal knowledge that he never went to restaurant.
Granted, the whole yearbook thing is BS, but that article did not disPROVE it. Legally sufficient “Proof”, or the absence of it, is the operative element here.