>>4102703>You can't prove either assumption which is why the process is irrelevant to the photo.This isn't a court of law so one can assume a bit based on evidence, your idea that definite proof is required when everything points to it not being conscious creation is simply ridiculous. You're setting a standard of evidence that you know can't be met, because you're arguing in bad faith. So rather than play, because you know you're losing you just puncture the ball and walk away with it. The match is over.
Your standards mean throwing a lot into the trash, beyond art. They mean destroying history and even sciences like paleontology. Well, guess what. It's possible to reconstruct something based on the evidence, you don't need all the missing pieces.