At last :wink: you got it, boys and girls...

Hair, facial expression, maybe pose and some other bits, nothing else... And I didn't mean anything else. The rest is pure coincidence for sure. But as for hair, pose, expression...

its just the hair and facial expression, nothing else!

well, maybe the pose and other bits, but mainly the hair and facial expression :?

...

[quote="Bottle_of_Smoke"]those shane picks are the same just inverted. they dont look alike just the same hair and clothes[/quote]
This asserted opinion surely will not make anybody disconcerted but may as well be converted since it’s possible that the same hair and clothes diverted poster’s attention and finding other striking similarities was thereby averted. The original assumption of allusion should not be deserted or subverted until further exploring efforts are exerted. :)

those shane picks are the same just inverted. they dont look alike just the same hair and clothes

Ssssssh! That was supposed to be a secret 8)

Gillespie ?!

Now I'm dizzy.

Who knows, hard to make a conclusion... Perhaps it is a collusion to cause confusion or to put us under the delusion that in certain people’s works allusions flourish in profusion. Perhaps only an intrusion into the athor’s intentions might help us to draw the conclusion that the inclusion of an allusion was just an illusion, and therefore might lead to our disillusion. But we might as well give up trying and in great confusion escape into seclusion... :wink:

[img]http://img.kelkoo.com/pdb/22301/cds/img11675.jpg[/img]



[img]http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/bimgdata/FC1568331878.JPG[/img]



[img]http://www.hotpress.com/i/1526028.jpg[/img]