Cesiumsponge
Member
Here are my observations. I won't say one way or the other. I'll just yack and let others make conclusions. Theoretically if one felt privy is to claim it is a photoshop job, they would use the following arguments:
Of course, that's a theoretical argument.
The second image shows a real AR-50 pasted in, and the first is some sort of homebrew replica.
The first image, the AR-50 is missing the aluminum stock that runs below the barrel and covers the bedding system. It's missing an integral picatinny rail that is part of the receiver itself. There is a scope that is mounted directly to the barrel with a single clamp. The trigger is too far forward in the trigger guard and consequently too thick. The guard is the wrong shape. The barrel clearly shows a stepped profile whereas the actual AR-50 has a gentle tapered barrel down its length with no steps. The pistol grip isn't the standard AR15 pistol grip. It looks like a steel rod no more than 1" diameter. This is determined by the way your fingers wrap around the bottom of grip and the size of an average man's fingers. There are no finger swells on the grip, checkering, or any profile resembling the stock grip.
On the second image, there is a clear white border around the rifle in places and typical pixilated "jaggies" indicative of multiple layered images and a poor job of smoothing the edge. The top layer(s) weren’t smoothed and were likely selected with a “magic tool” type function that selects an entire object of similar color. The settings on the “magic tool” were set too insensitive and hence it selected some lighter grey shades into the selected object. One will note the jagged edge of the rifle's border is seen nowhere else in any objects in the photo.
The rifle obviously isn't disturbing the pillow or comforter. A heavy item placed on such a surface would cause crinkles due to its hefty weight. However, the rifle appears to cause absolutely no disturbances to the two very soft surfaces it is placed upon.
The scope on it is completely different than the first image and the mounting system is completely different.
Comparing the two pictures, the second image shows a rifle that isn't missing the aluminum stock. It shows a rifle with the integral picatinny rail. It shows a completely different scope which is properly mounted by two clamps on a picatinny rail. The rear support (before the buttstock but after the grip) shows a perforated design running down it's center. The first picture shows a solid support piece with no perforation. It shows all signs of an actual AR-50, but as a pasted layer.
Lastly, the second image shows that the front of the pistol grip and the rear of the trigger guard is completely missing, as if an eraser tool went over the top layer on accident and zapped out a part of the rifle.
Of course, that's a theoretical argument.
