We have not collectively challenged Q on anything. As soon as we discovered Q photographed a reflection of another image he played it off as a "troll" then said it was "disinfo". Read the two breads after his af1 post, it's all there in real time.

Yesterday I found the source to iPhone_Twitter_WH.png and made an extremely shitty photoshop to show that it was again indeed taken from a stock image online (that i found in about half an hour of digging).

I'm still trying to find the source for iPhone_Tweets.png but it's tough to find. If another Anon can find it please post

This is how I think its done:

-find high resolution of whatever (potus/Af1)

-do minor tweaks in photoshop (stretch a few things)

-Print it or display it on a high res monitor

-use the back of a phone or other reflective material to line up the shot at a skewed angle

-Take a photo of said reflection

-pass it off as an original (because online image searches will not be able to find it)

In regards to the AF1 pic;

-How HARD would it be to replicate the stock image 1:1 whist standing in AF1 taking a photo of a reflection on the back of an iphone? As Q claims it was done to "troll"

-How come the image is warped in Q's photo? If he was standing in 3D space, the image would not warp in the reflection, it would keep its dimensions (try yourself, try to warp something using a flat surface to reflect it off of) This only works if it was a 2D image.

All of Q's posts with POTUS or in highly secure locations are blurry ass photos that have lots of distortion and have (smudges) and other shit on them. Occom's razor faggots need to man up and speak.

To cover up the fact that they are not original.

>>2043405

Come up with a better explanation to the problem and I will stop posting it. CD is strong with you anon.

>>2043423

Want me to type it out new every bread? Address the problem or stfu and let the real autists work

>>2043387

>>2043447

They are minor distortions FROM THE STOCK IMAGES online, you don't understand how reality works.

>>2043387

Read my post again, then again, until you understand. Try it yourself, take a photo of something, then try to recreated a 1:1 copy of it in a reflection.

>>2043430

• you cannot achieve the same angle of the image from sitting at the desk, you would have to be in the SAME position as the stock image was taken from

-how fucking hard would it be to replicate that image in a reflection? Q is not only MI bat a photo expert too?

-the fact that Q's image is stretched means that it's a reflection of a 2D object, you cannot stretch the 3D world unless the mirror you are using is rounded (which iphones are not). Either 2D or it was photoshopped.

-Myself and 3 or 4 other Autists have found the stock images these were created from and are called nothing but shills.

Q lied, physics proves it.

>>2043506

I was making fun of you for ad hom against me. Maybe you are an autist, start acting like one and re-read my post

>>2043387

>>2043611

I think that was my post as well, I did that about 20 minutes after the Q drop, onces someone found the source it all clicked. I saw it immediately, that's why i'm trying to explain to the other anons here. Something wrong.

Either Q did it to lead us into discovering it or he did it to fool us. It's not real, and neither is the potus one (same technique).

>>2043387

>>2043498

>>2043690

It must be addressed by Q. It's extremely damaging to the movement. Fuckery is afoot

See my breakdown and try to reasonable debunk my conclusions. I can't see it any other way.

>>2043387

>>2043733

He claimed it was real, he posted the Trump pic as proof he was with POTUS with a 1m delta to a tweet, it's used as a proof.

If it's not real why did Q call out "shills" that immediately called him out? Why did Q double down on it being real (with minor differences) Read the few threads after his drop, it was figured out in real time and he responded by swearing to it's authenticity.

>>2043852

yes from 2015. My breakdown explains how it's done.

>>2043387

>>2043876

My conclusions have not once been addressed anon. Q either posted this to challenge us, or to fool us (which he has clearly fooled you).

>>2043914

It's basically impossible to recreate a stock image

1:1 through a reflection. The stretching in Q's photo prooves either it was photoshopped or it was a reflection of a 2D image, the 3D world does not bend when reflected on flat surfaces like an iphone.

>>2043940

It will NEVER get notable status, the bakers and BO do not want this information shared or adressed. I've been trying since this AF1 thing went down. They want this buried because it's hard to argue against.

>>2043997

It's not proof, it's a photograph out of a window.

Look at my arguments about the images in question

>>2043387

>>2044049

It proves the images are either not the same, or one was edited as I make a strong argument about.