>>2023802

I 100% agree with this line of reasoning except for one thing:

Q TRIPLED DOWN ON THE PIC BEING REAL.

Doubled down here, along with what I interpret as trying to explain away photoshop:

"Where must one be located in order to obtain a reflection on the back of a phone of that image?

Image provided here has been distorted (stretched)."

And subsequently tripled down:

"Trolling is fun.

Hussein/Trump interior = identical minus small changes.

(World) news in rear literally placed same prior to each departure.

Placing that mug holder near the lamp was the hook."

So Q is obviously trying to pass this off as real.

What I DON'T get is why Q would do this when there are an abundance of actually convincing Q proofs (flynn done in [30], twitter coordination, singapore pics, etc etc…)

>>2024163

Meh. I like this one better: >>2022295

>>2024161

Good point anon. However:

>Q would have to print the Shill photo and take this new photo using the reflection of the IPhone.

Playing devil's advocate– If you were going to fake a post like this, isn't this exactly what you would do?

Print pic→ take reflection pic → "distort/skew" as Q said

If that's the case, the apple logo should be distorted, no? Is that even possible to determine, since it would be hard to tell between a distorted logo vs a pic taken of the logo at an angle?

>>2024209

It's sowing, btw. Like sowing seeds (of doubt). Not sewing clothing. Seen several people make this error tonight lol