>>2061973
It's not.
I saw that and was initially convinced. But it was done imperfectly. It doesn't QUITE fit. So I fired up GIMP and tried to redo it with a better fit. I couldn't. It's not actually possible to get everything to fit just right. Thus it was not produced from the stock photo.
I think the scene was physically recreate d based on the stock photo and then the reflection shot was taken. It's pretty damn close, definitely intentional. But it doesn't actually fit.
Q appears to be trolling the doubters by giving us something that at first looks legit, after comparison to the publicly available photos appears fake (giving the shills something to go nuts about), and then after more detailed analysis is proven to not be fake (devastating the cases of the shills and eliminating the last vestiges of doubt).