Forensics starts with actually using your eyes...
Not sure what the implication of that statement is.
Are you saying I needed to post commentary on the original image before I posted commentary on the image error level analysis? If so, I didn't have anything useful to add to what was already said.
Or are you implying that the original image is so obviously faked that the error analysis is superfluous? If so, I disagree because I think it adds some easily seen evidence.
Or is it something else?
This, especially because this error analysis doesn't seem to show much while the manipulation is very clear to see without using the tool.
Also note that the tool doesn't recognise the asics as copied. Apparently the forensics tool can be fooled. From the analysis you would have never concluded that the asics were never on the board.
In fact, the error rate in that picture seems pretty steady overall so i don't think the analysis allows you to conclude it's fake.