I agree. I found this line to be particularly strange: >> Detailed perusal reveals a ‘superfluous’ lock of hair that doesn’t match the rest of the young woman’

I agree. I found this line to be particularly strange: >> Detailed perusal reveals a ‘superfluous’ lock of hair that doesn’t match the rest of the young woman’s hairstyle. Undeniable proof the image has been manipulated. Is it really undeniable proof? I feel like there are possible explanations for what we're seeing.