- Joined
- Sep 14, 2021
Thanks for the information. Due to the high likelihood that I misinterpreted the metadata of the image, I went back and edited that section of my post. The information from before is still there, I just added a disclaimer that it’s probably not totally accurate and shouldn’t be treated as a smoking gun. There’s still a chance that this image is him, but I don’t want to mislead readers because of a mistake on my part. Sorry!That's correct. It refers to the order of the bytes in multi-byte values, and the brand names usually refer to very, very old processor standards from decades ago. I wasn't able to find anything identifying in the EXIF data.
Code:ExifTool Version Number : 12.76 File Name : Delete+_23c238e2742de8aa8959d178dd2c71e5.jpg File Size : 599 kB File Modification Date/Time : 2024:04:11 18:53:01-04:00 File Access Date/Time : 2024:04:11 18:53:05-04:00 File Inode Change Date/Time : 2024:04:11 18:53:03-04:00 File Permissions : -rw-r--r-- File Type : JPEG File Type Extension : jpg MIME Type : image/jpeg JFIF Version : 1.01 Exif Byte Order : Big-endian (Motorola, MM) X Resolution : 72 Y Resolution : 72 Resolution Unit : inches Y Cb Cr Positioning : Centered Exif Version : 0231 Components Configuration : Y, Cb, Cr, - Flashpix Version : 0100 Color Space : sRGB Interoperability Index : R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB) Interoperability Version : 0100 Image Width : 2000 Image Height : 1500 Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding Bits Per Sample : 8 Color Components : 3 Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:2 (2 1) Image Size : 2000x1500 Megapixels : 3.0
Regardless of the metadata thing, I had already mentioned that there is unfortunately no conclusive evidence of this being a facedox. I don’t think that matters too much, though. The real meat (lol) of my post was the gay erotica.
Last edited: