Apparently someone didn't like their shoes...

[Rsully70sev]

Photoshopped on my part? Negative-first of all, I don't even know how to use photoshop (as many of you know from my photoshop request threads) and even if I knew how to use it besides opening the browser, my capabilities wouldn't allow me to photoshop "mud" off of a shoe.

The first picture is on my iPhone. Then, to get a closer picture of one of the shoes, I "zoomed" in using my two fingers, took a screen shot by holding the power and home button, and boom! My second picture! Which explains pixel distortion.

[dirk619]

this is funny,

subbed.

[slammin.e28]

Still no tits? Fuck....I'm going somewhere else to fap.

[m3michel]

Where and how do people get off on this? Why can't everyone be honest and appreciate the freedom of doing open business?

Great write up.

[CHIF8008]

epic thread

[dreamchasin]

How long were these in his possession before he contacted you? I think I read 3 days. That's well more than enough time to fuck them up (IF they are the same pair). I could get my insoles looking like that in a few hours, all I gotta do is hop on my bike and ride around town.

[DTM190]

Bahahaha these shoes need to be made into a trophy

[ck_taft325is]

that's not the same shoe....that 3rd picture, the shoe looks all black with grey nike logo outlined in red. along with the nike logo placed in the incorrect place basing off of the 1st and second picture.

I could be wrong..

Inside to the outside of the shoe is what you're noticing. Just my $0.2

[tg318is]

I can tell by the pixels that its been photoshopped

[dreamchasin]

that's not the same shoe....that 3rd picture, the shoe looks all black with grey nike logo outlined in red. along with the nike logo placed in the incorrect place basing off of the 1st and second picture.

I could be wrong..

[Dozyproductions]

the plot thickens!

[Rsully70sev]

I apologize for my absence from this thread haha. I was celebrating Mother's Day with the family at our house in Guerneville. Since it's somewhat of a forest setting, I was unable to connect to the internet on my laptop, I only had time to reply to a few emails via iPhone while I was in town.

I have attached two photos I had prior to the sale, and the third one being the one the buyer (Wes) sent me. I felt the picture I posted showcased the shoe clearly. Because of eBay's guidelines, they allow one free picture, and after that it cost money. I felt this picture would be been sufficient. Taking a picture of the sole for a representation of the shoe would be like taking a picture of a toilet when trying to sell a house. You know it has to have one, but it's not the main focus of the add.

Here's where it comes down to a matter of evidence provided:

First of all, the buyer said he had 8-9 pairs of these shoes. The item in question above could have been ANY one of those shoes he owns or previously owned, in addition to the insoles he photographed as well. Imsotryyred was correct in saying that, if he did not have a time stamped video of him opening the original package, in original packaging material, his case and photographic evidence is thrown out the window or door-whichever version of the saying you prefer.

Second of all, I'm not a forensic scientist, nor am I claiming to be one, but the matter at the bottom of the shoes seems to be an accumulation of water and dirt correct? (Opposed to the residue left behind by simple every day use, or even the remains of a dusty trail) Regardless, water was involved. Although this is circumstantial, I'm just throwing it out there. It hasn't rained in Petaluma, CA since April 20th. If I were to even wear these shoes on the specific date listed, the shoes would have clearly been "muddy" after .22 inches of rainfall. (Irrelevant, but I wore my Elm green Half cabs, on 4/20 to San Francisco, as stated in a previous thread posted by me.) On the other hand, according to weather.com, there has been rain/thunder/lightening storms for the past week, and the week to come in most of West Virginia where the buyer lives.

SO, back to the topic at hand, if by chance I wore these shoes on April 20th, that means that the shoes would have been muddy/dirty from the 20th up until the sale of the shoes which was May 5th I believe. This means, the shoes would have been "muddy/dirty" in my freshly carpeted room, while I photographed them on top of my other shoes, which I would have clearly never done.

This thread is hilarious, I love it.

[BrownBeanE30]

This thread sucks balls I'm so disappointed

[imsotyerred]

who the hell would spend $65 on those, let alone have bought 19 pairs beforehand?

[HiTheNameIsBJ]

Yeah it was a good idea, the same thought crossed my mind, good find on the ad.