On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:07:56 -0500, Chuck Harris
wrote:

Antonio Iovane wrote:

The only smoke here appears to be from some ancient ham's cigarette.

Just a thought,

-Chuck

Just another thought.
First, why not to specify in the listing that the pictures are not of
the actual listed item?
Further but less important, I see it is unlikely that an elderly ham,
who has enough practice to sell on ebay, is able to copy and past, and
probably would try to sell other stuff too, might not have a digital
camera.
Antonio I8IOV

Cutting and pasting is trivial on most modern operating systems. So much
so that kids in 1st grade do it, and think it is ok to copy anything that
way.

I still see auctions that have no pictures whatsoever. I agree that the
seller should have identified where the pictures came from, but I have
bought things on ebay that had "found" pictures without identification,
and was not unpleased with the result.

Not everything that seems suspicious is the result of treachery.

However the claims go much farther than this example. IF the photo is
listed as showing the actual item for sale but has been "borrowed"
and shows the interior of an entirely different piece of equipment
wouldn't that be "suspicions confirmed?"

Roger


-Chuck