10 years ago
I propose here to answer about this photo, and later I will quote your question and will comment in the topic About photography?
I'll just be more neatly. I think it's the right.
Moreover, this particular image can not be used for illustration.
Because I do not see signs of
manipulation* there to point out as ''physical evidence''; i.e. - my opinion above is based more per ... ''psychological dissection''
and logical consequences, so to say. I will explain. ...and it shall be a quite long ..
...
I started to write, but converges to quite boring, so I refused to post it.
In short, I will say so - given what I've seen on the issue, the most logical and normal reaction would be, if the photo is real - the author to confirm this in plain text. But he do not do this (even though he is not indifferent and commented on the strident criticism about him).
So, my belief is not based on what he said, rather - what is not.
If it seems strange, i would have to write the long version
_________
* - The question of what is "manipulated photo" will touch in more detail in the other thread