I've never taken much stock in the satanic images, masonic connections, etc.
My personal convictions are more simple. Basically my belief is that if they have lied about their history and misquoted secular authorities, I have no reason to put faith in them. In their own publications it says, "A religion that teaches lies cannot be true."
Regarding embellishments by apostates, I would say it definitely happens.
However, there are some things where both sides may be right. For instance, they do not disfellowship. They instead say "so-and-so is no longer one of JWs". This has been documented at elder's schools and in elder letters to the congregations.
However, the rest of the congregation - and even most elders - might say (out of habit) that the person was "disfellowshipped" when speaking informally after the announcement. In this case both sides are really correct, even though the terminology is technically different.
My $.o2 cents
ithinkisee