I can, and I've said so before.You guys really can't see it's photoshopped? Really?
I can, and I've said so before.
Plus has anyone stopped to wonder how he he makes it disappear inside his panties?
huge photoshopped schlong:
http://www.lpsg.org/members/gavinator/albums/moi/502836-photo03150010.jpg
http://www.lpsg.org/members/gavinator/albums/moi/500255-photo03071328-2.jpg
vanishing act:
http://www.lpsg.org/members/gavinator/albums/moi/500250-gavgav.jpg
http://www.lpsg.org/members/gavinator/albums/moi/500252-img-0611.jpg
p.s. Don't bother leaving skeptical comments on his profile. He deletes them immediately.
I can, and I've said so before.
Plus has anyone stopped to wonder how he he makes it disappear inside his panties?
huge photoshopped schlong:
http://www.lpsg.org/members/gavinator/albums/moi/502836-photo03150010.jpg
http://www.lpsg.org/members/gavinator/albums/moi/500255-photo03071328-2.jpg
:redface: Well, color me fooled. Now that I have I looked at the guy's gallery, I have to say that I can't see any clear signs of alteration in the individual photos, except for this one, where the underpants have a weird border to them. I am not sure how much weight to give to the complete absence of bulge in the shots where he's got his underpants on: there are freakish "growers," after all. It seems to me, though, that there is plain evidence of fakery is the disparity in erect size between, e.g., this photo and most of the others, such as this one.
Gavinator, your membership in the Skinny Guys with Huge Cocks Association is hereby revoked. :thumbsdown2:
I have to say, though, that the alteration in the photos posted in this thread is some of the best that I have ever seen.
Certainly much better than average, which is why I think lots of people have been fooled, but there are lots of tell tale clues. The undie border you pointed out is the first one I noticed too. Look at the intersections where his genitals join his body. It's rather well blended, but looks anatomically awkward in several pics, plus there are abrupt changes in skin tone in several of them too. Look at the hands too; they don't match up in some of the pics. In some where he's holding his dick the fingers look impossibly long wrapped around his dick, and in the ones where he's wearing the bracelet you can see that the image has been spliced in.I have to say, though, that the alteration in the photos posted in this thread is some of the best that I have ever seen.
Even if he tripled in length and quadrupled in girth, which would be highly unusual if not impossible, he'd still be showing way more flaccid bulge. Heck, if he cut off his dick, his balls alone would show a much bigger bulge.I am not sure how much weight to give to the complete absence of bulge in the shots where he's got his underpants on: there are freakish "growers," after all.
Not if it's fake. Have you seen him on cam?stop overanalyzing. its just HUGE.
biggest on here.
What kind of fakery?
Even if he tripled in length and quadrupled in girth, which would be highly unusual if not impossible, he'd still be showing way more flaccid bulge. Heck, if he cut off his dick, his balls alone would show a much bigger bulge.
http://www.lpsg.org/members/gavinator/albums/moi/500249-photo03071326-2.jpg
http://www.lpsg.org/members/gavinator/albums/moi/500252-img-0611.jpg
:redface:Well, color me fooled. Now that I have I looked at the guy's gallery, I have to say that I can't see any clear signs of alteration in the individual photos, except for this one, where the underpants have a weird border to them.[/B] I am not sure how much weight to give to the complete absence of bulge in the shots where he's got his underpants on: there are freakish "growers," after all.It seems to me, though, that there is plain evidence of fakery is the disparity in erect size[/B] between, e.g., this photo and most of the others, such as this one.
Gavinator, your membership in the Skinny Guys with Huge Cocks Association is hereby revoked. :thumbsdown2:
I have to say, though, that the alteration in the photos posted in this thread is some of the best that I have ever seen.
You quote my post and then make a comment that indicates that you didn't even read it, or at least that you read it without weighing the arguments.
If my argument, and the pair of photos that I cited, were not enough to decide the matter, this argument and this pair of photos would be.
Anybody who has read Maxcok's and my posts, has examined the photos in light of our arguments, and still believes that the photos are unaltered, shows a serious impairment of judgment.