> A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Fokkens analysis shows “new evidence that allegedly shows Mitchell used a high speed camera to scan

> A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Fokkens analysis shows “new evidence that allegedly shows Mitchell used a high speed camera to scan video memory.” In fact, it shows “new evidence that uses a high speed camera to show the scanning of video memory.” The original formulation made no sense at all. How in hell did it ever get past reviewers and editors?