Bullshit. You put bold type on the part of the sentence that suits your purposes ("I have to say that I can't see any clear signs of alteration in the individual photos") and take no account of the words that immediately follow, which state an exception to those words ("except for this one, where the underpants have a weird border to them"). It is as if someone were to say, "I trust HappyBoi to use misrepresentation in argument," and you quoted him as saying "I trust HappyBoi." A low tactic.
Bullshit again. I said, in the words that you quote, "It seems to me, though, that there is plain evidence of fakery is [I meant "in"] the disparity in erect size between, e.g., this photo and most of the others, such as this one." The evidence of fakery that I cited comes from the comparison of photos. If someone just looks at one photo and not the other, or looks at one and then the other without thinking to compare them, he will miss the evidence. So the evidence can just as easily be missed as noticed. And nothing that I wrote implied otherwise.
The fakery consists in altering the photographs to enlarge the image of the penis in it. I took that to be so obvious that I found it, and still find it, incomprehensible that, after I had presented reasons for believing the photos to be altered, you demand to know "what fakery." Of course I don't see the alteration to the photo: to see that, I would have to have the original photographs in front of me for comparison with the altered versions. I do not know by what techniques Gavinator altered the photos, but the question of whether the photos are faked does not depend on that in any case.
Wrong--I won't say "bullshit" this time since I think that in this instance you are merely making a mistake rather than being dishonest, as you were in the previous instances. If someone posts photos that show his erect penis to have widely disparate sizes, and posts some photos that show his erect penis to be huge while others show his genitals to take up, as Maxcok pointed out, less space than his testicles alone take up in the other photos, then those discrepancies are real evidence of fakery.
