There is no reason why analysis of this photo should be downplayed as shilling so long as no conclusions are instantly drawn from it or it's meaning.

The autist bashing seems more like the shill tactic than those of us working to explore options.

I said it late last bread but Q said "how do you get a reflection of that image on a phone?" Q did not say 'how do you get a reflection of that location, of that place, of the desk…' and that may or may not be important.

here I have done about all I can with MS paint to equalize all the stretching and swirling and skewing in the Q photo, cropped the ABC stock photo to match the same area in the Q photo and compared the curtain layout vs and obviously newer AF1 photo. it would be very easy to arrange the desk to look the same but the curtains seem like they would be to most likely place to find discrepancies.

>>2029229

Can you read? I said that I was comparing whether or not that curtains lay the same over the years. I clearly labeled the photos, detailed what i was looking and my findings.

I laid the ABC photo and Q photo together which we all established is the one that it was based on, then found the most difficult thing to replicated would be the curtain layout. So I went to find a recent photo of AF1 to see how differently the curtains lay and found that despite years of difference they almost the same. So the photo would not be as difficult to mimic as we might have thought. Keep up anon.

>>2029457

Stands for Crazy Days And Nights. I guess it is a forum where you can anonymously post crazy shit. I haven't dug into it.

>>2029542

IF the photo were original.

>>2029567

True anons understand. Autists analyze and that is what we are doing. As long as it doesn't take the form of "photos are the same Q= LARP 100%" then it is healthy investigation.

If Q were a LARP, Q is a damn good one. Even a LARP that good you would expect the photo to not be that lazy. So even those of you crying foul, it still doesn't match with the caliber of posts we usually get.