>>2971
The M sign isn't reliable for every single instance. As I said before, all it takes is one official document or a generally credible testimony (not all testimonies are credible of which most paranoid people forget that reality) to prove someone's a Freemason. If anything, the M sign is a natural, anatomical phenomenon of the human hand whereby the space between the index and middle as well as the ring and little fingers is formed without giving any real thought to how it looks like from the perspective of others. In other words, if you do the poses in any of those paintings without trying to make it look like that by other people around you, it would ironically look unnatural if you consciously try to not make the M sign when normal people who aren't Masons end up doing that M sign unconsciously. If you want to be a technical shithead, you would notice that the M sign in >>2974 is a proper M sign while the other pictures are doing the "E sign" since it's sideways or the "W sign" if it's upright. If you genuinely think that nobody makes that finger positioning naturally, I will have to say that you are wrong. Freemasons for the most part are open with their Masonic affiliation except during times of persecution. Usually the Freemasons you really should watch out for are those that at first admit their affiliation and then deny it afterwards like Billy Graham did in suppressing the information that was on his website which they've redacted. If there were never any self profession of that sort that wasn't later redacted, and if no Freemason admits to someone being a Freemason during the time of "peace" for them, AND if there's no official documentation that wasn't falsified, there's no real reason to treat them as genuine Freemasons. Same thing goes for smaller cults more or less although they're more elusive and covert than the typical Freemasons, they have their own different means of flaunting their gang signs.