IT’S A FAKE! Analyst Says Judge Roy Moore Signature Inside Allred's Accuser’s Yearbook Was FORGED

[Pogo]

Why didn't Trump use it against him when he was running in the GOP Primary?

Are you claiming the entire population of Gadsden is making it up?

You make my case a second time RW. If these allegation were "common knowledge", and Trump could have used them against Moore, who all polls showed beating his chosen candidate, why indeed didn't he use the "common knowledge" information against Moore?

Again, this gets sillier and sillier by the second

Really? REALLY?? You want Donald Rump of all creatures to bring up an issue of sexual harassment? Really?

Would you also expect Anthony Weiner to denounce penis posters? Bill O'Reilly to pooh-pooh people who shout? Kenny G to crucify people who play sappy vacuous music?

Hey why not have Rump put down Narcissism while we're at it. We can dream can't we?

This is ***WAY*** too close to home for Rump. That's why he's avoiding it like a tax form.

But, you deflect to only Trump. No answer why the ACLU, the LGBT community nor the DNC were ever able to dig up this "common knowledge" information of Moore in past battles.

Are you really that dumb? I am embarrassed for you.

Let's go to the instant replay, shall we? Roll it.

>> If these allegation were "common knowledge", and Trump could have used them against Moore, who all polls showed beating his chosen candidate, why indeed didn't he use the "common knowledge" information against Moore? <<​

WHO could have used them again? I missed that part.

What the fuck interest would the ACLU have in this? Is ephebophilia unconstitutional now?

I continue to be embarrassed for you. You can only address one of the several bulldog groups that I posted about, yet you don't have an explanation as to why, if this was really "common knowledge", meaning taking very little effort for these groups to investigate, THEY DIDN'T.

Damn, the dense runs deep in you.

I don't know what the fuck a "bulldog group" is but I do know desperate deflection when I read it.
And I'm reading it directly above.

You have no clue in the world what the ACLU does, do ya?

 

[Pop23]

You make my case a second time RW. If these allegation were "common knowledge", and Trump could have used them against Moore, who all polls showed beating his chosen candidate, why indeed didn't he use the "common knowledge" information against Moore?

Again, this gets sillier and sillier by the second

Really? REALLY?? You want Donald Rump of all creatures to bring up an issue of sexual harassment? Really?

Would you also expect Anthony Weiner to denounce penis posters? Bill O'Reilly to pooh-pooh people who shout? Kenny G to crucify people who play sappy vacuous music?

Hey why not have Rump put down Narcissism while we're at it. We can dream can't we?

This is ***WAY*** too close to home for Rump. That's why he's avoiding it like a tax form.

But, you deflect to only Trump. No answer why the ACLU, the LGBT community nor the DNC were ever able to dig up this "common knowledge" information of Moore in past battles.

Are you really that dumb? I am embarrassed for you.

Let's go to the instant replay, shall we? Roll it.

>> If these allegation were "common knowledge", and Trump could have used them against Moore, who all polls showed beating his chosen candidate, why indeed didn't he use the "common knowledge" information against Moore? <<​

WHO could have used them again? I missed that part.

What the fuck interest would the ACLU have in this? Is ephebophilia unconstitutional now?

I continue to be embarrassed for you. You can only address one of the several bulldog groups that I posted about, yet you don't have an explanation as to why, if this was really "common knowledge", meaning taking very little effort for these groups to investigate, THEY DIDN'T.

Damn, the dense runs deep in you.

I don't know what the fuck a "bulldog group" is but I do know desperate deflection when I read it.
And I'm reading it directly above.

You have no clue in the world what the ACLU does, do ya?

You have no clue what a "bulldog group" is. That's just sad deflection on someone who tries to act as you do. What Pogo, you need it spelled out? I am again embarrassed for you.

Yes, I know what the ACLU does, they fight for their point of view, and as does most groups, pass information they obtain to like minded groups.

 

[jc456]

A nice breakdown by Rory, at Metabunk:

I've managed to find some examples of Roy Moore's handwriting, which can be compared to the inscription in the yearbook:

Source: twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/930163967783292928

Source: twitter.com/BobVanceJr/status/930221242375864320

Seems very clear to me that all three were either written by the same person, or by an incredibly skilled forger.

Compare the Ts, for example:

Not 100% exactly the same, but the same distinctive style, and as alike as most of us write our letters.

We can also compare what looks like 'Jerry' in the biography inscription, and 'Merry' in the yearbook:

Again, not exact, but basically the same styles - bearing in mind that they were written 32 years apart.

I won't go over all the similarities, of which many could be made - nor can I find any glaring differences, beyond the slight variances that would be expected.

The thing is, for those who support him, it is the differences that are key, and what they are focused on. Hence analyses like this:

Source: cowgernation.com/2017/11/14/vindicated-signature-forged-12-discrepancies-roy-moores-alleged-yearbook-signature/

Sure, there are subtle differences - though obviously we can discount 9 thru 12 - but it's the similarities that are more glaring in my eyes, and I guess this is where an awareness of confirmation bias comes in, on both sides.

I wonder, though, if those producing analyses like this will have found suspicion in the marked differences in the different ways he has printed his name in the two places in the above image, or in the various examples of his accepted signature, which are about as different from one another as any of them are from the one in the yearbook:

Note: all of these signatures contain his middle initial. Would be quite interesting to find when he started doing this.

Too many inconsistencies to say the yearbook is not forged.

The writing instrument, the paper the writing is on need to be similar. One of the posted signatures looks to be a felt. That’s no help unless comparing another felt signature.

Still, the production of the original is key. Without it, it’s all speculation.

Such denial in the face of overwhelming evidence

Why not just say......A girl in the restaurant asked me to sign her yearbook so I thought up something nice to say

Instead we get these bizarre conspiracies over how his signature ended up in her book

His signature, if it's real, proves he was there and that he knows the girl. If it's a forgery, then her story goes out the window.

You are incredibly fucking stupid, but you can't be this stupid, not to understand the significance of the yearbook and his signature in it.

Furthermore, douchebag, the "Roy" in the yearbook doesn't look like any of the examples you posted. They are all consistent in having the loop of the 'Y' go way above the rest of the letters. The yearbook example doesn't do that. You only confirmed that the signature is suspicious.

No banana.

It became an issue once Creepy Roy started to lie about it
He could have just admitted he signed it and claimed it was an innocent act at the request of a young girl
But now that he has chosen to lie, he has no choice but to continue to lie

Whatever these minutiae, the bottom line is that come election time voters are going to gravitate to whoever looks like a winner. When Roy Moore was defying the Constitution and clinging to his Ten Commandment obelisk, that looked like a winner, at least in the heart of the Confederacy, by defying the damyankee Revenooers. That got him through the primary.

But now that he's on the defensive and flailing around kind of helplessly, and the adversary is home-grown rather than Northern Liberals, he looks more whiner than winner.

Let's face it, he's hardly the brightest bulb in the light tower, and that fault is, uh, coming to light through all this. Inasmuch as the position is one that represents the state on a national stage, a growing number of Alabamans have to be thinking --- "wait... is this the best we can do?".

naw, now everyone is getting it. they see the mandate for the seat and not the concern for the child 40 years ago by everyone. It is their's to decide. we will see. I know where my money's at. will see who actually is whining.

 

[Pogo]

Really? REALLY?? You want Donald Rump of all creatures to bring up an issue of sexual harassment? Really?

Would you also expect Anthony Weiner to denounce penis posters? Bill O'Reilly to pooh-pooh people who shout? Kenny G to crucify people who play sappy vacuous music?

Hey why not have Rump put down Narcissism while we're at it. We can dream can't we?

This is ***WAY*** too close to home for Rump. That's why he's avoiding it like a tax form.

But, you deflect to only Trump. No answer why the ACLU, the LGBT community nor the DNC were ever able to dig up this "common knowledge" information of Moore in past battles.

Are you really that dumb? I am embarrassed for you.

Let's go to the instant replay, shall we? Roll it.

>> If these allegation were "common knowledge", and Trump could have used them against Moore, who all polls showed beating his chosen candidate, why indeed didn't he use the "common knowledge" information against Moore? <<​

WHO could have used them again? I missed that part.

What the fuck interest would the ACLU have in this? Is ephebophilia unconstitutional now?

I continue to be embarrassed for you. You can only address one of the several bulldog groups that I posted about, yet you don't have an explanation as to why, if this was really "common knowledge", meaning taking very little effort for these groups to investigate, THEY DIDN'T.

Damn, the dense runs deep in you.

I don't know what the fuck a "bulldog group" is but I do know desperate deflection when I read it.
And I'm reading it directly above.

You have no clue in the world what the ACLU does, do ya?

You have no clue what a "bulldog group" is. That's just sad deflection on someone who tries to act as you do. What Pogo, you need it spelled out? I am again embarrassed for you.

Yes, I know what the ACLU does, they fight for their point of view, and as does most groups, pass information they obtain to like minded groups.

WRONG. They deal with Constitutional issues, which ebhebophilia is definitively not.
You're way outta your league, Hunior.

 

[Pop23]

But, you deflect to only Trump. No answer why the ACLU, the LGBT community nor the DNC were ever able to dig up this "common knowledge" information of Moore in past battles.

Are you really that dumb? I am embarrassed for you.

Let's go to the instant replay, shall we? Roll it.

>> If these allegation were "common knowledge", and Trump could have used them against Moore, who all polls showed beating his chosen candidate, why indeed didn't he use the "common knowledge" information against Moore? <<​

WHO could have used them again? I missed that part.

What the fuck interest would the ACLU have in this? Is ephebophilia unconstitutional now?

I continue to be embarrassed for you. You can only address one of the several bulldog groups that I posted about, yet you don't have an explanation as to why, if this was really "common knowledge", meaning taking very little effort for these groups to investigate, THEY DIDN'T.

Damn, the dense runs deep in you.

I don't know what the fuck a "bulldog group" is but I do know desperate deflection when I read it.
And I'm reading it directly above.

You have no clue in the world what the ACLU does, do ya?

You have no clue what a "bulldog group" is. That's just sad deflection on someone who tries to act as you do. What Pogo, you need it spelled out? I am again embarrassed for you.

Yes, I know what the ACLU does, they fight for their point of view, and as does most groups, pass information they obtain to like minded groups.

WRONG. They deal with Constitutional issues, which ebhebophilia is definitively not.
You're way outta your league, Hunior.

What in Gods Name is a Hunior? And why the hell do you think sharing "common knowledge" information with those you represent is beyond the scope of what they do?

Dense dude, either that, or extremely incompetent. Which one are you?

 

[rightwinger]

Folks should look into the Duke Lacrosse Team debacle. Democrats are known for unethical legal practices. But justice was finally done in that scam. The Democrat Prosecutor was eventually arrested and did some time. Hopefully Allred will meet the same fate at some point.

Duke was one accuser

This one has five and dozens who back up their story

 

[Pop23]

Folks should look into the Duke Lacrosse Team debacle. Democrats are known for unethical legal practices. But justice was finally done in that scam. The Democrat Prosecutor was eventually arrested and did some time. Hopefully Allred will meet the same fate at some point.

Duke was one accuser

This one has five and dozens who back up their story

And it was common knowledge, yet no groups that hated him used this information in past battles against him?

Why?

You calling the DNC stupid or what?

 

[rightwinger]

Why didn't Trump use it against him when he was running in the GOP Primary?

Are you claiming the entire population of Gadsden is making it up?

Are you claiming the entire population knew? You're making my point for me. If they all knew, then the ACLU, the LGBT community and the DNC would have used the info against him and had plenty of backup. They didn't, so again, which is it? These groups are incredible idiots or we have reverse engineering of a scandal happening.

Those who knew Creepy Roy knew

Huh, the press made no qualifications what-so-ever. The allegations were supposedly "common knowledge" and so many left wing organizations were unable to dig them up? Really, you expect anyone to believe that?

Took many months to get the story together
As it is...it is pretty solid for a 40 year old case

You aren't that stupid are you?

You have bulldog organizations like the ACLU, LGBT and DNC, and your excuse is that it "took time". For what, do get allegations out that were, as media outlets called them "common knowledge?

What exactly are the points you're trying to make, that the above groups are idiots?

Since when is molesting young girls a Civil Liberties issue?

 

[Pop23]

Are you claiming the entire population knew? You're making my point for me. If they all knew, then the ACLU, the LGBT community and the DNC would have used the info against him and had plenty of backup. They didn't, so again, which is it? These groups are incredible idiots or we have reverse engineering of a scandal happening.

Those who knew Creepy Roy knew

Huh, the press made no qualifications what-so-ever. The allegations were supposedly "common knowledge" and so many left wing organizations were unable to dig them up? Really, you expect anyone to believe that?

Took many months to get the story together
As it is...it is pretty solid for a 40 year old case

You aren't that stupid are you?

You have bulldog organizations like the ACLU, LGBT and DNC, and your excuse is that it "took time". For what, do get allegations out that were, as media outlets called them "common knowledge?

What exactly are the points you're trying to make, that the above groups are idiots?

Since when is molesting young girls a Civil Liberties issue?

I see, you do believe the DNC are idiots,

 

[Dschrute3]

Folks should look into the Duke Lacrosse Team debacle. Democrats are known for unethical legal practices. But justice was finally done in that scam. The Democrat Prosecutor was eventually arrested and did some time. Hopefully Allred will meet the same fate at some point.

Duke was one accuser

This one has five and dozens who back up their story

The Democrat Prosecutor was a lying piece of shite. And so is Allred. Hopefully she'll end up doing some time too.

 

[paperview]

Why won't the Senate Judiciary Committee hold a hearing and investigation?

 

[jc456]

Why won't the Senate Judiciary Committee hold a hearing and investigation?

when?

 

[bripat9643]

His signature, if it's real, proves he was there and that he knows the girl. If it's a forgery, then her story goes out the window.

You are incredibly fucking stupid, but you can't be this stupid, not to understand the significance of the yearbook and his signature in it.

Furthermore, douchebag, the "Roy" in the yearbook doesn't look like any of the examples you posted. They are all consistent in having the loop of the 'Y' go way above the rest of the letters. The yearbook example doesn't do that. You only confirmed that the signature is suspicious.

No banana.

It became an issue once Creepy Roy started to lie about it
He could have just admitted he signed it and claimed it was an innocent act at the request of a young girl
But now that he has chosen to lie, he has no choice but to continue to lie

In other words, Moore is guilty, no matter how questionable the evidence. All the evidence indicates the woman is the one who is lying:

1. The Olde Hickory House required employees to be at least 16. Beverly Nelson claims she was 15 when she started.
2. The restaurant’s dumpsters were on the side of the building and not in back as Nelson claimed.
3. A former employee says the restaurant NEVER closed at 11 PM as Nelson claimed and at midnight on most nights.
4. Customers at the counter were served by the bartender or cook and not by any waitress.
5. The witnesses claim they have shared this information with several news outlets but they have refused to report the truth!

You really are a giant economy sized douchebag, ya know it?

He couldn't sign because of dumpsters????

I'm already thoroughly convinced that you're an idiot. You don't need to keep piling on the evidence.

Poor Fingerboy

Already going into full tantrum mode.
Need a timeout?

Pointing out your dumb question means I'm having a tantrum?

 

[jc456]

Why won't the Senate Judiciary Committee hold a hearing and investigation?

when?

she waited 38 years to report something we're all supposed to act on immediately? huh?

 

[bripat9643]

In fact it seems a bit silly.

Consider this, If you believe that it was (as reported in more than a few national outlets) "common knowledge" around Gadsen, that Roy Moore had a liking for, and dated High School girls when he was in his thirties:

He was elected as Alabama Supreme Court justice, having views far removed from the DNC, the ACLU and Atheists, yet none of them were able to dig up these allegations which were "common knowledge" to stop his election?

When he refused to remove the 10 commandments from public spaces, the DNC, the ACLU and Atheists, didn't use this "common knowledge" to bolster their case against him?

When he was re elected to the Alabama Supreme Court, something the left didn't want to happen, the DNC, the ACLU and Atheists, again, none of them were able to dig up these allegations to stop his election? Even though they were "common knowledge?

When he was removed from the Court a second time for refusing to recognize Same Sex Marriage, the DNC, the LGBT community, the ACLU and other far left groups were unable to produce this "common knowledge" information to bolster their case?

Really, we are to believe that these bulldog organizations fell silent, even though this information was "common knowledge".

Someone make sense of the above.

These groups opposed to Moore's political views are either run by morons, or incredible inept. Or both?

Or we have some reverse engineering of a scandal going on here.

Why didn't Trump use it against him when he was running in the GOP Primary?

Are you claiming the entire population of Gadsden is making it up?

You make my case a second time RW. If these allegation were "common knowledge", and Trump could have used them against Moore, who all polls showed beating his chosen candidate, why indeed didn't he use the "common knowledge" information against Moore?

Again, this gets sillier and sillier by the second

Really? REALLY?? You want Donald Rump of all creatures to bring up an issue of sexual harassment? Really?

Would you also expect Anthony Weiner to denounce penis posters? Bill O'Reilly to pooh-pooh people who shout? Kenny G to crucify people who play sappy vacuous music?

Hey why not have Rump put down Narcissism while we're at it. We can dream can't we?

This is ***WAY*** too close to home for Rump. That's why he's avoiding it like a tax form.

But, you deflect to only Trump. No answer why the ACLU, the LGBT community nor the DNC were ever able to dig up this "common knowledge" information of Moore in past battles.

Are you really that dumb? I am embarrassed for you.

Let's go to the instant replay, shall we? Roll it.

>> If these allegation were "common knowledge", and Trump could have used them against Moore, who all polls showed beating his chosen candidate, why indeed didn't he use the "common knowledge" information against Moore? <<​

WHO could have used them again? I missed that part.

What the fuck interest would the ACLU have in this? Is ephebophilia unconstitutional now?

Moore's primary opponent could have used them. Trump was supporting him.

 

[bripat9643]

A nice breakdown by Rory, at Metabunk:

I've managed to find some examples of Roy Moore's handwriting, which can be compared to the inscription in the yearbook:

Source: twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/930163967783292928

Source: twitter.com/BobVanceJr/status/930221242375864320

Seems very clear to me that all three were either written by the same person, or by an incredibly skilled forger.

Compare the Ts, for example:

Not 100% exactly the same, but the same distinctive style, and as alike as most of us write our letters.

We can also compare what looks like 'Jerry' in the biography inscription, and 'Merry' in the yearbook:

Again, not exact, but basically the same styles - bearing in mind that they were written 32 years apart.

I won't go over all the similarities, of which many could be made - nor can I find any glaring differences, beyond the slight variances that would be expected.

The thing is, for those who support him, it is the differences that are key, and what they are focused on. Hence analyses like this:

Source: cowgernation.com/2017/11/14/vindicated-signature-forged-12-discrepancies-roy-moores-alleged-yearbook-signature/

Sure, there are subtle differences - though obviously we can discount 9 thru 12 - but it's the similarities that are more glaring in my eyes, and I guess this is where an awareness of confirmation bias comes in, on both sides.

I wonder, though, if those producing analyses like this will have found suspicion in the marked differences in the different ways he has printed his name in the two places in the above image, or in the various examples of his accepted signature, which are about as different from one another as any of them are from the one in the yearbook:

Note: all of these signatures contain his middle initial. Would be quite interesting to find when he started doing this.

Too many inconsistencies to say the yearbook is not forged.

The writing instrument, the paper the writing is on need to be similar. One of the posted signatures looks to be a felt. That’s no help unless comparing another felt signature.

Still, the production of the original is key. Without it, it’s all speculation.

Such denial in the face of overwhelming evidence

Why not just say......A girl in the restaurant asked me to sign her yearbook so I thought up something nice to say

Instead we get these bizarre conspiracies over how his signature ended up in her book

His signature, if it's real, proves he was there and that he knows the girl. If it's a forgery, then her story goes out the window.

You are incredibly fucking stupid, but you can't be this stupid, not to understand the significance of the yearbook and his signature in it.

Furthermore, douchebag, the "Roy" in the yearbook doesn't look like any of the examples you posted. They are all consistent in having the loop of the 'Y' go way above the rest of the letters. The yearbook example doesn't do that. You only confirmed that the signature is suspicious.

No banana.

It became an issue once Creepy Roy started to lie about it
He could have just admitted he signed it and claimed it was an innocent act at the request of a young girl
But now that he has chosen to lie, he has no choice but to continue to lie

Whatever these minutiae, the bottom line is that come election time voters are going to gravitate to whoever looks like a winner. When Roy Moore was defying the Constitution and clinging to his Ten Commandment obelisk, that looked like a winner, at least in the heart of the Confederacy, by defying the damyankee Revenooers. That got him through the primary.

But now that he's on the defensive and flailing around kind of helplessly, and the adversary is home-grown rather than Northern Liberals, he looks more whiner than winner.

Let's face it, he's hardly the brightest bulb in the light tower, and that fault is, uh, coming to light through all this. Inasmuch as the position is one that represents the state on a national stage, a growing number of Alabamans have to be thinking --- "wait... is this the best we can do?".

The claims of the accusers are in tatters, adn the voters are flocking back to Moore as a result. He's going to win this thing after all. I'm sure all you slandering bigots will be call him a child molster then.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A nice breakdown by Rory, at Metabunk:

I've managed to find some examples of Roy Moore's handwriting, which can be compared to the inscription in the yearbook:

Source: twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/930163967783292928

Source: twitter.com/BobVanceJr/status/930221242375864320

Seems very clear to me that all three were either written by the same person, or by an incredibly skilled forger.

Compare the Ts, for example:

Not 100% exactly the same, but the same distinctive style, and as alike as most of us write our letters.

We can also compare what looks like 'Jerry' in the biography inscription, and 'Merry' in the yearbook:

Again, not exact, but basically the same styles - bearing in mind that they were written 32 years apart.

I won't go over all the similarities, of which many could be made - nor can I find any glaring differences, beyond the slight variances that would be expected.

The thing is, for those who support him, it is the differences that are key, and what they are focused on. Hence analyses like this:

Source: cowgernation.com/2017/11/14/vindicated-signature-forged-12-discrepancies-roy-moores-alleged-yearbook-signature/

Sure, there are subtle differences - though obviously we can discount 9 thru 12 - but it's the similarities that are more glaring in my eyes, and I guess this is where an awareness of confirmation bias comes in, on both sides.

I wonder, though, if those producing analyses like this will have found suspicion in the marked differences in the different ways he has printed his name in the two places in the above image, or in the various examples of his accepted signature, which are about as different from one another as any of them are from the one in the yearbook:

Note: all of these signatures contain his middle initial. Would be quite interesting to find when he started doing this.

don't see one with D.A, after it.

He was not trying to get into the pants of 16 year old when he wrote the other ones


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

well he is a failure, cause he never got into any pants except his wife's.

Yeah, he was not very good at it that is for sure. He started working on his wife when she was 15 and didn't get any till she was 24. At least he is persistent I suppose

 

[jc456]

A nice breakdown by Rory, at Metabunk:

I've managed to find some examples of Roy Moore's handwriting, which can be compared to the inscription in the yearbook:

Source: twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/930163967783292928

Source: twitter.com/BobVanceJr/status/930221242375864320

Seems very clear to me that all three were either written by the same person, or by an incredibly skilled forger.

Compare the Ts, for example:

Not 100% exactly the same, but the same distinctive style, and as alike as most of us write our letters.

We can also compare what looks like 'Jerry' in the biography inscription, and 'Merry' in the yearbook:

Again, not exact, but basically the same styles - bearing in mind that they were written 32 years apart.

I won't go over all the similarities, of which many could be made - nor can I find any glaring differences, beyond the slight variances that would be expected.

The thing is, for those who support him, it is the differences that are key, and what they are focused on. Hence analyses like this:

Source: cowgernation.com/2017/11/14/vindicated-signature-forged-12-discrepancies-roy-moores-alleged-yearbook-signature/

Sure, there are subtle differences - though obviously we can discount 9 thru 12 - but it's the similarities that are more glaring in my eyes, and I guess this is where an awareness of confirmation bias comes in, on both sides.

I wonder, though, if those producing analyses like this will have found suspicion in the marked differences in the different ways he has printed his name in the two places in the above image, or in the various examples of his accepted signature, which are about as different from one another as any of them are from the one in the yearbook:

Note: all of these signatures contain his middle initial. Would be quite interesting to find when he started doing this.

don't see one with D.A, after it.

He was not trying to get into the pants of 16 year old when he wrote the other ones


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

well he is a failure, cause he never got into any pants except his wife's.

Yeah, he was not very good at it that is for sure. He started working on his wife when she was 15 and didn't get any till she was 24. At least he is persistent I suppose

nice fiction.

 

[bripat9643]

In fact it seems a bit silly.

Consider this, If you believe that it was (as reported in more than a few national outlets) "common knowledge" around Gadsen, that Roy Moore had a liking for, and dated High School girls when he was in his thirties:

He was elected as Alabama Supreme Court justice, having views far removed from the DNC, the ACLU and Atheists, yet none of them were able to dig up these allegations which were "common knowledge" to stop his election?

When he refused to remove the 10 commandments from public spaces, the DNC, the ACLU and Atheists, didn't use this "common knowledge" to bolster their case against him?

When he was re elected to the Alabama Supreme Court, something the left didn't want to happen, the DNC, the ACLU and Atheists, again, none of them were able to dig up these allegations to stop his election? Even though they were "common knowledge?

When he was removed from the Court a second time for refusing to recognize Same Sex Marriage, the DNC, the LGBT community, the ACLU and other far left groups were unable to produce this "common knowledge" information to bolster their case?

Really, we are to believe that these bulldog organizations fell silent, even though this information was "common knowledge".

Someone make sense of the above.

These groups opposed to Moore's political views are either run by morons, or incredible inept. Or both?

Or we have some reverse engineering of a scandal going on here.

Why didn't Trump use it against him when he was running in the GOP Primary?

Are you claiming the entire population of Gadsden is making it up?

Are you claiming the entire population knew? You're making my point for me. If they all knew, then the ACLU, the LGBT community and the DNC would have used the info against him and had plenty of backup. They didn't, so again, which is it? These groups are incredible idiots or we have reverse engineering of a scandal happening.

Those who knew Creepy Roy knew

Huh, the press made no qualifications what-so-ever. The allegations were supposedly "common knowledge" and so many left wing organizations were unable to dig them up? Really, you expect anyone to believe that?

Took many months to get the story together
As it is...it is pretty solid for a 40 year old case

It's about as solid as Swiss cheese.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A nice breakdown by Rory, at Metabunk:

I've managed to find some examples of Roy Moore's handwriting, which can be compared to the inscription in the yearbook:

Source: twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/930163967783292928

Source: twitter.com/BobVanceJr/status/930221242375864320

Seems very clear to me that all three were either written by the same person, or by an incredibly skilled forger.

Compare the Ts, for example:

Not 100% exactly the same, but the same distinctive style, and as alike as most of us write our letters.

We can also compare what looks like 'Jerry' in the biography inscription, and 'Merry' in the yearbook:

Again, not exact, but basically the same styles - bearing in mind that they were written 32 years apart.

I won't go over all the similarities, of which many could be made - nor can I find any glaring differences, beyond the slight variances that would be expected.

The thing is, for those who support him, it is the differences that are key, and what they are focused on. Hence analyses like this:

Source: cowgernation.com/2017/11/14/vindicated-signature-forged-12-discrepancies-roy-moores-alleged-yearbook-signature/

Sure, there are subtle differences - though obviously we can discount 9 thru 12 - but it's the similarities that are more glaring in my eyes, and I guess this is where an awareness of confirmation bias comes in, on both sides.

I wonder, though, if those producing analyses like this will have found suspicion in the marked differences in the different ways he has printed his name in the two places in the above image, or in the various examples of his accepted signature, which are about as different from one another as any of them are from the one in the yearbook:

Note: all of these signatures contain his middle initial. Would be quite interesting to find when he started doing this.

don't see one with D.A, after it.

He was not trying to get into the pants of 16 year old when he wrote the other ones


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

well he is a failure, cause he never got into any pants except his wife's.

Yeah, he was not very good at it that is for sure. He started working on his wife when she was 15 and didn't get any till she was 24. At least he is persistent I suppose

nice fiction.

Not fiction at all, Roy Moore first saw her when she was 15 at a dance recital. What sort of pervert 30 year old goes to a teens dance recital?