>>2024405
That's not what I was saying.
I agree it's a photo of a reflection.
However, you could just print out the stock image from abc and take a pic of its reflection.
You can't rule out that it's not a photo of a printed photograph.
Good reasoning, but you are ignoring the post where Q says they moved the items around to exactly match the stock picture.
I don't see how you can't interpret these two posts any other way than Q claiming the pic to be real.