The images Q referenced are NOT the original images. WTF.

I just checked in photoshop. The photos that journalist on the TicToc Twitter account are LARGER than the ones Q called "originals," and are at a higher resolution (higher megapixels), despite Q's files being larger. You don't magically create more pixels out of nowhere.

Anons, this looks really bad. I'm performing additional analysis, but frankly, this just looks like someone screencapping something on their phone and reposting…

I don't want to doubt Q, but I need an explanation for this.

>>5410600

You're right. He never definitely said that we have the originals. He just HEAVILY HEAVILY HEAVILY implied that we had them by asking:

>Anons have the originals?

>How is that possible?

WTF, Q??!?

>>5410659

Believe me, I want to believe that. But there've been so many screw ups lately. Like the fake Patton Oswalt photo yesterday.

This literally looks like whoever posted the photos just took a screenshot off Twitter and ended up with a more compressed image. No need for magic phone tapping by the NSA.

>>5410753

You can check your brain at said door, if you want. I'm not.

Q has some serious 'splainin' to do.

>>5410670

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just saying the photos Q highlighted as "originals" are NOT originals.

Idk why he did it, but it's really upsetting and confusing to me.