>>34640872I agree that it's really not, but once it eventually gets past the point of
>>34640088, if it ever does, it's going to be really difficult to tell what's going on without doing really specific analysis. art like
>>34640021 easily passes standard principal component, noise, error level, luminance analyses, etc. From an image analysis perspective it's an original, but if a human looks at it you can tell it's messed up.
