Fantastic, no one is debating the existence of 9 inch penises. There is clear, obvious visual evidence of that size that exists. "10 inches" (bone-pressed or non-bone-pressed), however, which the user in question is claiming cannot be classified in that same category, because no authentic evidence of that size exists. (Your own hilariously photoshopped photos you're always linking on the forum don't count BTW).
For making a claim. If you do not want to be scrutinized, then don't make unrealistic claims, then fail to back them up. How do you not understand that?
I make the claim that this is my cock. If you claim "foul" or photoshop, or it's someone else's picture then prove it..[/QUOTE]
Hah! Forget those photos. All one has to do is peruse through your joke of a gallery and see there's foul play going on.
In one photo, there's a bunch of completely unnatural rings around your shaft which are present in no other photo.
In the photo where your penis is hanging out of your blue jeans with your belt undone, there's a mole/birthmark on the upper left side (your left) of the shaft. In all the other photos, it is blatantly missing.
If you want, I could get into a discussion further with some other people here who analyze photos and we could depict and point out evidence of foul play in all (or nearly all) of your photos.
Fucking amateur.