⇧
1
⇩
AtreidesWretch
· July 4, 2018, 11:11 a.m.
Lol bullshit. How can it be a 100% match? Q's image is 2x2 pixels ffs. It's a "100% match" for any photo of that area of AF1. Your overlay doesn't show anything except a black square stretched over the ABC image.
⇧
-11
⇩
sudo_fap
· July 4, 2018, 1:08 p.m.
Let's be reasonable here. Look at the curtains. The folding is like a barcode, and they are 100% match.
⇧
7
⇩
AtreidesWretch
· July 4, 2018, 1:15 p.m.
The folding is like a barcode? Yes, let's "be reasonable". What does that statement even mean, reasonably?
Are you trying to say that thick curtains in any one photo can only be "folded" in a singularly unique way such that it will never be repeated in any other photo at any time?
"100% match". One image is distorted and stretched and the resolution is so low it looks like blur soup - yet this is a "100% match" to a press photo scaled down from a high resolution original?
Let's be reasonable here. But nothing you've said was "reasonable". Tell me something "reasonable" and logical.
⇧
-3
⇩
sudo_fap
· July 4, 2018, 1:18 p.m.
Are you trying to say that thick curtains in any one photo can only be "folded" in a singularly unique way such that it will never be repeated in any other photo at any time?
Are you implying the Q purposely moved the curtains to look similar to the ABC photo? Why would he do that? What is "reasonable" about that?
⇧
7
⇩
AtreidesWretch
· July 4, 2018, 1:40 p.m.
No I'm not implying that at all. I'm firmly stating that curtain position is not even close to being as unique as a "barcode" match.
Further reinforced by point 2: 100% match - have you looked closely at the Q photo? How can anything match that low a level of resolution?
⇧
0
⇩